>But you remember there were pages in hyperdoc that could be explicitly >executed by pressing a button. So if that is connected to ++E and ++R >that would not be a problem, because the user asked for it. Well of >course, you must check that the user did not modify the ++E stuff before >you compare with ++R.
I have a "layered" approach to the documentation depending on how the user is approaching the problem of finding an answer. Suppose the user is at the command prompt and needs function help: In the algebra the ++E syntax is only used at the moment to provide example output for the )display operation command. Your excellent suggestion integrates that into the testing. Thus anything the user sees should have passed test in build. Suppose the user is at the command prompt and needs domain help: Some algebra files now have )help documentation that gets automatically extracted and added to the system. So if a user wants help on domains rather than operations then the )help domain ascii text documentation is available. These pages are extracted and tested now as part of the standard build. Thus anything the user sees should have passed test in build. Suppose the user is in hyperdoc or firefox: If the user is in hyperdoc then the usual tests are applied. This is no longer automated (although it used to be at IBM). However, hyperdoc pages are rarely ever changed as far as I can tell. Maybe the new PDF format will make them easier to understand and change. If the user is in Firefox then the pages are planned to be automatically extracted and tested but this does not yet exist. There is still a large buildout of new functionality. In either case I could modify the extraction function to elide the ++E/++R lines so testing can be inlined in the pages. Suppose the user is trying to do a classroom task: The .input files are used for testing at the moment but the plan is to expand them into documentation for a particular problem in a particular domain, as a whitepaper on some subject like doing Binary Decision Diagrams (in process). These are intended to be more tutorial in nature. Professors interested in teaching can create tutorials and have them automatically tested. Clearly the automated testing syntax will survive here. Suppose the user is trying to understand how it all works: The final layer of documentation is the .pamphlet file PDFs which will eventually contain all of the source code. I could take your suggestion for the )display ++E/++R syntax and build it into the PDF machinery. Currently the hyperdoc pages are taken directly from the .pamphlet file and soon the firefox html pages will also come directly from the .pamphlet file. I can modify the extraction process to filter out the ++E/++R testing syntax lines automatically. Then they do not show up in user displays but are automatically tested. Tim _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
