chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] ideas


From: Peter Keller
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] ideas
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:07:25 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.2i

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:23:03PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 1) Scribe doesn't run under Chicken, does it? If not, then it is sort
>    of annoying to have to get Bigloo to compile Chicken's
>    documentation...

Yeah, that would kinda suck to use bigloo to compile chicken's docs.

> 2) Texinfo will produce plain text, html and formatted
>    documentation. LaTeX won't do that conveniently.

Well, LaTeX to html is pretty easy to do, you can use 'latex2html'
for that. Formatted documentation? I don't know what you mean there,
but LaTeX is a typesetter, so it _better_ format your stuff however you
damn well want. :) Also, LaTeX is very heirarchical, it is almost hard to
write a badly styled document in it.

As for plain text, honestly, I've never wanted any of the manuals I read
in plain text. I usually print them out or look at the HTML conversion
since HTML gives you the searching ability you woulda gotten under
plain text, except you get tables and stuff, and if you care you can use
'lynx/links' to read it on vt100.

> 3) I sort of prefer troff, but I'm a lunatic and it is unlikely others
>    would agree with me.

:)

> Given all this, it seems Texinfo might be the right thing, at least
> for the main manual. I still favor having calls documented with man
> pages but that's another story.

Well, my point is, why use a derivative of (La)Tex, which scribe and
texinfo are, if you could just use LaTeX itself with all of the features
it has not being limited in any way. I mean, if you replace @ with \
in Texinfo, it basically IS TeX--but limited.

And yeah, man pages prolly should be written in troff. I think most of
us agree on that.

-pete






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]