On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 at 05:15AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote: > How about foo_sagetex.sage and foo_doctest.sage for consistency.
That's a thought. I'm much more accustomed to using dots as separators, though. > The new sagecommandline environment needs yet another auxiliary file > because it is based on the listings package and not verbatim. LaTeX > can feed input directly into verbatim macros, but not into listings > code. On the plus side, listings looks better than verbatim, having > the sage output saved into an auxiliary file is more flexible, and it > helps with debugging. I asked if there was another way to do it mostly out of curiosity, not to suggest that your patch wasn't a good one. On the contrary, your contribution is really great -- it's something I've wanted for a long time now. > As for the environment names, right now there is: [...] > I think ideally they would all be combined into a single "sage" > environment, with options that determine whether to typeset the sage > command, the sage output, and whether to doctest. By default, it would > then behave like sagecommandline does now. After I wrote my message, I realized that yes, all the "sage*" environments could perhaps be unified. Your idea of one environment that takes options is a good one. Dan -- --- Dan Drake ----- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake -------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
