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

[Ralf Hemmecke]

On 10/21/2006 09:47 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> On October 21, 2006 2:46 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > Bill Page wrote:
> > > ... One of the advantages of the patch that Tim made to noweb was
> > > that (usually) one does not need to make the distinction between
> > > a noweb format file and a pure latex format file because the
> > > default handling of undefined chunk names is less disruptive.
> > That has nothing to do with the issue that src/doc/Rosetta.pamphlet
> >  does not contain any code chunk nor any unescaped << (in Gold, 
> > Silver or build-improvements).
>
> Look at line 273
>
> \Axiom       & set [1, 2] & [1, 2]    & matrix([[1, 2],[3, 4]])
>
> and many lines after that.
>
> When these lines are processed by the unpatched noweb program the 
> [[...]] sections are expanded as noweb "quotes", but when processed 
> by Tim's patched version of noweb this does not happen.

I really could not believe that Tim's patch handles that case correctly.
Note that inside [[...]] noweb does never require a chunk name.

If I say

noweave -delay Rosetta.pamphlet > Rosetta.tex

then I get for the above input line (actually it is line 271) the line

\Axiom       & set [1, 2] & [1, 2]    & matrix({\Tt{}1,\ 2],[3,\
4\nwendquote})            \\

as output and of course

latex Rosetta.tex

ends with the error message

l.271 ...   & set [1, 2] & [1, 2]    & matrix({\Tt
                                                  {}1,\ 2],[3,\
4\nwendquote...

since \Tt is defined in noweb.sty (which is never included).

OK let's do the same thing with the patch.

$AXIOM/bin/lib/noweave -delay Rosetta.pamphlet > Rosetta1.tex

That leads to the line

\Axiom       & set [1, 2] & [1, 2]    & matrix({\tt{}1,\ 2],[3,\ 4})
        \\

and you certainly agree that the original definition of \tt does not
produce [[ in the output.

latex Rosetta.tex

succeeds but the output is simply wrong. The patch is a misfeature!!!

> Everything with extension .pamphlet should be processed by noweave
> before calling latex.

I completely agree. Doing otherwise just causes confusion.

Ralf