C Y writes: > > I think it would be a good idea to create a cl.net project > > for CLX, but I think Dan Barlow and the other CLX maintainers > > should have their say first. > > Good idea. Are they all on the portable-clx list?
I would think so. > > For that reason, I think you might want to reconsider turning > > it into a LaTeX version, which would then invariably get out > > of sync with the Texinfo version, and instead you might want > > to make sure there is a recent Texinfo version available. > > Just curious - what are the main advantages of texinfo for something > like this? (Well, OK, I guess Emacs integration is an obvious one...) Texinfo was written specifically for documenting software, and so that both printed and on-line documentation would be relatively easy to generate. For that purpose, it has very good cross-referencing and indexing capabilities. It has predefined markup for many common constructs in software documentation, and it has markups for on-line navigation. At the same time it is less general than LaTeX, making it easier to generate the final output, whereas in LaTeX, you essentially need to rewrite the TeX macro engine in order to do that in general. I don't think Texinfo is perfect, and I would love to see extensions to it for CL-specific constructs (perhaps Dan Barlow has some of those implemented), but it is probably the best we have at the moment. -- Robert Strandh --------------------------------------------------------------------- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
