Re: [Axiom-developer] build-improvements and latex

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Page, Bill" <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

| > > Bill Page wrote: 
| > > | Changing axiom.sty.pamphlet to axiom-sty.pamphlet and added a
| > > | chunk named <<asxiom.sty>>= still seems like the right thing
| > > | to do to avoid this "bug". I one sentence explanation in the
| > > | pamphlet file should be enough documentation for such a simple
| > > | change that is otherwise consistent with the rest of the Axiom
| > > | source code.
| > >
| > Gsby wrote: 
| > > I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm explaining, *why* from my
| > > perspective, that exception to the general rule is acceptable
| > > -- even when I don't find it perfect or don't like it.
| >
| 
| I do not understand your point of view. As far as I can see there
| is *no* exception to the either Rule 1 or Rule 2! What do you think
| is violated by the use of the "axiom-sty.pamphlet" file name?

It is ironic that we're agreeing, but we seem to think we disagree.

Let me explain again.  The *current* situation is that we have
axiom.sty.pamphlet, from which we extract axiom.sty.  Everything is
OK.  Except that for very obscure reasons, it does not seem to work
properly when LaTeXinig that specific file (sorry, Ralf, the more yyou
explain, the less I become convinced we should just add .tex).  
*A* solution is to rename the source file to axiom-sty.pamphlet, which
departs from the original naming.  axiom-sty.pamphlet is the only file
to go through that mutification.

| Perhaps you are really concerned about a different more implicit
| rule (Rule 3) :
| 
|   The 'file' part of the file.pamphlet name should the same as the
|   "name" of the program in the file - in other words the same as
|   the name of a code chunk in the file.

No.

| Of course if there is only one such code chunk then it is natural
| to try to make these names the same or at least similar. But the
| application of Rule 3 is not always straightforward. If there is
| more than one program or style file in the pamphlet file there
| will be multiple code chunk names.

yes; of course.  From my perspective, the basename should match a
logical unit, that also cleanly translates to automation.

[...]

| Ok. I think that really is my last word on this subject! :-) In
| the end I will agree to either of these choices. I just think
| that Rule 1 with a small compromise to Rule 3 is the most simple
| and easy approach. Obviously both methods will solve the problem.

For the record, I think that the renaming is my favoured option.

-- Gaby