[Axiom-mail] Re: noweb

[root]

>   What is the status of noweb with respect to Axiom installation?
> That is, noweb is built solely to permit extraction of source code and
> documentation. Is the built binary ever intended to be installed when
> Axiom is installed?  Can I for sure assume that it is a build utility
> only? 

once the meta files disappear from the sources we won't need to build
a local version of noweb. however, if it isn't available on the local
system we will still continue to build it in the near term.

noweb is built so we can extract sources. we've had discussions about
changing the syntax so it is pure latex as in
  \begin{chunk}[chunkname]
  \end{chunk}

  {\use [chunkname]}
but i haven't spent any time hacking latex macros to do that yet.
if we take this step then there is no need for 'noweave' at all.

we've also had discussions of doing the notangle in lisp which 
would eliminate the need for noweb at all.

both efforts are related and likely to occur in the future.



i've been watching your automake efforts in silence (mostly because
i'm completely work-buried) to see how the debate turns out.

you're welcome to construct an automake facility any way you'd like
but keep in mind that literate documentation is the long term key.
you made the comment that automake files are self-documenting and
i have to disagree strongly. (try handing them to a student and
see if they're written for the human or the machine.)

i think that no matter what choices you make they'll eventually
evolve into another form (as you're evolving my weak attempt at
configure scripting) so i'd concentrate on getting it working and
documented and then worry about getting it politically correct.
running code wins the debate every time.

we really need the automake function. my configure script just
won't cut it.

t