On Friday, September 13, 2013 12:06:18 AM UTC+1, William wrote:
> Did anybody write (or consider writing) the other approach to this,
> which is a tex file
> that gets processed directly by sage to make another tex file, which
> is then compiled.
Thats even more ugly than what we already do. And you'll get into the same
kind of trouble from the Python side if you write \verb#\begin{sagetex}# in
the sagetex documentation.
If somebody wants to spend time working on that then I'd recommend a good
look at luatex. This embeds the lua language, which would allow you to
spawn a sage process at the beginning and then execute sage commands as
they are found. If there is an error you'd get the tex or python error at
the position where it first appears. Only a single pass would be necessary
to get the output file, and because there is only a single TeX source there
is no problem with forward/inverse search. Lua is very similar to Python,
so its not difficult to learn. The only downside would be that luatex
relatively new, so some latex packages might not work (yet).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" 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/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
