John W. Shipman wrote:
+-- Dave Pawson:
| Yet again, quote
|
| A small Python script extracts one or more source files from
| the document, and these are the executable form of the program.
| /quote
|
| That seems wrong John?
+--
What exactly is wrong with that? I have a Makefile set up
so I type:
make code
Wrong as in non generic, tailored to your usage?
Looking at the Python it seems functionally equal
to an xslt transform?
and it runs my Python script, which extracts the source files.
When I say they are the executable form of the program, they are
exactly that for Python, Relax NG, and XSLT. For a compiled
language there would clearly be a compile step. Sorry I didn't
mention that, but I haven't used any compiled languages for
over ten years.
No, source seems 'right' for this.
+--
| Another problem I have, a long command line, e.g. calling
| java, saxon for a transform,
| docbook has no
|
| <line>java -cp .....
| <linebreak/>main.class
| <linebreak/>param1
| etc
|
| To enable XSLT to re-build a single line from one
| split, for the sake of convenience?
+--
This is another problem I haven't encountered. I usually keep my
lines short (75 characters for the current toolchain).
Not possible when the resultant command line needs to be on one line.
Embedded markup allows for better documentation. Again, easy
enough to strip out using XSLT.
Another reply on this thread said that they prefer to keep the
documentation inside the code, rather than the literate approach
wherein the code is inside the documentation.
I prefer XML to wrap code simply to enable XSLT processing.
The drawback to
their approach is that you need a different extractor for each
language.
Or a more GP 'filter'. XSLT seems optimum to me.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
