[Dev-luatex] luatex 0.60 literate progamming options

Taco Hoekwater taco at elvenkind.com
Sun Feb 21 15:03:42 CET 2010


Hi,

Martin Schröder wrote:
> 2010/2/21 Taco Hoekwater <taco at elvenkind.com>:
>> 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



More information about the dev-luatex mailing list