[Axiom-developer] Re: [Axiom-mail] Re: noweb

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> writes:

| > | \begin{chunk}{MyCode} % The chunkname should not be optional!!
| > | false
| > | \end{chunk}
| > | | \begin{chunk}{MyChunk} % The chunkname should not be optional!!
| > | apply(x: Boolean, y: Boolean): Boolean == x and y;
| > | (x: Boolean)/(y: Boolean): Boolean == x and y;
| > | MyCode: Boolean == true;
| > | use: Boolean := true;
| > | b: Boolean := MyCode /\ use/\use {MyCode} % How should that be parsed???
| > | \end{chunk}
| 
| > | Doing that kind of programming in TeX is extremely difficult, since in
| > | one place \ must be taken literally and in another it is considered as
| > | a character that starts commands. If you want the code also reasonably
| > | readable as a LaTeX source, I don't think that going the LaTeX way is
| > | the right choice.
| 
| > Is this issue similar to that the package fancyvrb faces?
| 
| I haven't used fancyvrb, so I am not completely sure whether my
| reasoning is correct. But I have looked into the verbatim
| package. You'll probably believe that there are quite some tricks to
| recognise the \end{verbatim} in a stream of characters that TeX is
| actually supposed to output literally.

Well, I'm not a TeXnician, nor a LaTeX expert.  I just find the
package fancyvrb amazing, flexible, and happen to prefer it over other
alternatives I've tried.  Given the sort of things it does, I thought
it might have faced similar issues, but again I'm not a LaTeX expert.

-- Gaby