Hi Waldek, looking at the new xhash.spad (after removal of noweb), I must say that I am not really happy.
I definitely want to write documentation like I did with the original xhash.spad.pamphlet. I also want to write ++ docstrings. But let's concentrate on the LP-like, i.e. partly more informal documentation that explains overall structure etc. etc. Your current suggestion with )if false and )endif is certainly a working compromise, but it is not really something I would like to use. The reason is that with pile mode, it is just too easy to get the indentation wrong and that's hard to detect. Well, I could use )nopile, but until the (optional) semicolon works like in Aldor, I won't change. But OK, some day we might have some better convention. Anyway, I usually introduce rep x ==> (x@%) pretend Rep per x ==> (x@Rep) pretend % right at the top of the file, making them global macros for possibly several domains in the file. Well not a real problem, but I'd like to have them logically at the top of the file. As I understand, your convention now is that )abbrev must be the first thing. Everything before will not go into the resulting .spad file. That also says, )abbrev must appear right in front of the constructor. IIUC, SPAD does not impose that convention. One could have all )abbr declarations right at the top of a file. I think I'm rather in favour of disabling splitting of .spad files into one-constructor-per-file. I don't see it at the moment how much work that would be. Do you think it's too much at the moment? Ralf PS: In fact, I'm even for removing )abbrev, but that's a bigger wish, I think. ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
