"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:19 AM Gaby wrote: | > ... | > Bill Page wrote: | > | In my opinion it is only an accident that axiom.sty.pamphlet | > | has this name and contains only one root chunk. In general this | > | is not the case. | > | > The axiom.sty.pamphlet is inded very special. Its purpose and | > its functionality are not the same like any others. We should | > not forget that. | > | | I don't understand. In what way is it special?
It is self-referencing, and foundational to anything else for Axiom documentation, and therefore has a more intimate relationship with TeX than others. | To me it looks | just like any other "header" file and could easily be a chunk | in some other latex-related file. No argument there. | It seems to me the only peculiarity here is with the latex | command as reported by Waldek: | | http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07222.html | | that when given the command: | | \usepackage{axiom} | | by default looks for | | axiom.sty.tex | | in the current directory even though the common practice is to name | the file | | axiom.sty | | and to locate it in the shared texmf file tree. To me this is | strange and unexpected. I cannot find this behaviour documented | anywhere on the web. So it looks like a bug in tex to me. Probably. | Changing axiom.sty.pamphlet to axiom-sty.pamphlet and added a | chunk named <<asxiom.sty>>= still seems like the right thing to | do to avoid this "bug". I one sentence explanation in the pamphlet | file should be enough documentation for such a simple change that | is otherwise consistent with the rest of the Axiom source code. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm explaning, *why* from my perspective, that exception to the general rule is acceptable -- even when I don't find it perfect or don't like it. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
