On 05/24/2014 07:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> 1) Do you have (short term) plans to remove the splitting of .spad >> files? > > That was answerd.
OK, I must have missed it. >> 2) Can we fix the convention that literate stuff is enclosed in >> )if LiterateDoc ... )endif instead of )if false ... )endif ? That >> would mean a little more semantic information for scripts turn >> .spad into .tex. > > I agree to ')if LiterateDoc' ... ')endif' for literate docs. > However, it is not clear which part is literate. As you noted, they > frequently are not correct LaTeX. Well, the problem was (IMHO) that the "document" script was very inconvenient. Now we (maybe I) can make it better. The )if LiterateDoc should be enough. I've updated http://axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org/SpadFileConvention . > So fixing them is bigger job than adding tags. Sure. But at least I've to go through what Martin Rubey had written and bring it into a shape that can be easily fed to LaTeX (I haven't paid attention in what state it is at the moment.) > Let me add that I find most content of such sections of no help for > understanding problems -- they are included because they help/helped > original authors (or at least authors wanted them). So it is up to > authors to keep them in shape they want. Sure. Nobody said that you should do the change. I haven't yet looked through the code, but my impression was that we only have very few literate files. Some day I'll look at them and straighten things up. Ralf -- 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.
