[Dev-luatex] luatex 0.60 literate progamming options

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


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

> 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

Best wishes,

More information about the dev-luatex mailing list