[Axiom-developer] Pamphlet format discussion

[daly]

Bill writes:
>>> Integrating noweb into Axiom to support the current pamphlet file
>>> format seems entirely reasonable to me. I think calling noweb as a
>>> system supplied utility is the best approach

Tim writes:
>> In the current system the result would be the same from the user
>> perspective. In future planned use this would not be the case. Can
>> you state in one or two sentences either your advocacy of noweb or
>> your objection to native

Bill writes:
> noweb exists, works as required and is maintained by someone else.
> Rewriting basic tools is a waste of current and future resources. I
> don't know what "future planned use" involves but in my opinion more
> radical changes in literate programming philosophy are required than
> can be accomplished by changes of this kind.




So, two points then.

1) "Rewriting basic tools is a waste of current and future resources."

The code already exists in the current silver to tangle pamphlet files
using either noweb or latex format. The weave function already exists
in a local version, enabling context-specific processing of pamphlets
at runtime rather than as now, only at build time. For example, we could
dynamically fetch partial content from a pamphlet in response to a 
)help command.

There are no "current and future" resources. This is a volunteer effort
and we only get to decide our own resource usage. Objecting to the use
other people make of their time isn't a topic of debate.





2) "I don't know what "future planned use" involves but in my opinion 
   more radical changes in literate programming philosophy are required 
   than can be accomplished by changes of this kind."

At the present time there is no user-visible difference between noweb
and cl-web (or, for non-ansi, gclweb). Thus they are functionally
equivalent.

Since you don't have future plans and don't know of any future plans
it seems that you must be objecting to my future plans.  For instance,
there have been discussions of my future plans for crystal on this
list in the past. Clearly noweb is not adequate for those "future
plans".




Rather than say "no" to system change it seems more useful to propose
an alternative. Anyone can say "no" but that just slows progress. 

What plans do you have that are impacted by the change?
How can we compromise on the plans you have versus the plans I have?

It also seems that your objections are at the level of construction
(don't put that brick there) rather than architecture (we need 4 bell 
towers, not 3).

Architectural decisions are reasonably subject to objection and vote.
Construction decisions follow from necessity and aren't appropriate 
for voting.

Tim