Re: [Dev-luatex] luatex 0.60 literate progamming options

Hi, Martin Schröder wrote:

2010/2/21 Taco Hoekwater :

...

Peter Breitenlohner wrote:

...

From the build system side, I'd think normal users (i.e., people building TL or just luaTeX) should not be required to have either Noweb or Doxygen, as they are not required to have Autoconf, Automake, Flex, or Bison. On that note (and lacking other discussion input), I move we go with Cweb.

Sorry for my silence. Peter's assumption for Oxygen is false: It augments the source code, so the only people who would be required to have it would be those who want to build the documentation. And I believe it does many things CWeb doesn't (e.g. diagrams, HTML documentation, ...).

But we can't have both, I assume. Cweb would be happy with extra Doxygen comments, but not the other way around (right?). And it is traditional for all TL users to be able to generate the typeset documentation.

One major problem I have with systems like CWEB is that they need tool support (e.g. in the debugger), as the code the compiler sees isn't the one the programmer edits.

gdb is perfectly happy to work with my mpost sources, so I am not convinced this is important. For example, I can set breakpoints on the actual line numbers of the web file. As for @d macros: those are converted to standard cpp macros, and behave identically in the debugger. Best wishes, Taco