This page is for general comments, ideas, enhancement requests, bugs, etc. related to Literate Programming. Use the entry below as a format example with a @SIG@ at the end.
Other Ways to Provide Feedback
Other way to provide feedback include
- updates to these wiki pages inline
- comments in a separate page section
== Discussion == ...
send general comments to the general forum
-- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-19 08:08:29
Literate Fragment Syntax
It seems that literate parser grabs }}} anywhere in the code and treats it as end of literate block. Should it rather grab it only if there is nothing but }}} in that line (maybe with some whitespace)?
-- AndrewNikitin 2007-03-20 18:45:24
So, there is no way to have literal '}}}' anywhere in source code? Are there any other unobvious character strings that are prohibited in literate code blocks? -- AndrewNikitin 2007-03-20 19:00:58
It's a matter of practicality. If it does not work like it does in Wiki, then it's a bug.-- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-20 19:40:40
I am not advocating new behaviour. I am advocating listing of potential bad strings that can explode. -- AndrewNikitin 2007-03-20 20:01:53
Currently, there is a bug that does not escape "<" as in <text in fragment code.
-- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-20 18:54:53
This is now fixed: both in fragment body and tags -- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-23 23:47:14
On the weave side of a matter. Currently a section reference generates a hyperlink to a place where it first defined. This should be retained for inline section references, but section name in the heading of literate block should generate hyperlink to a place where this section is first referenced in some other literate block. -- AndrewNikitin 2007-03-20 19:16:04
Yes, this is another enhancement to Literate parser. The problem was a perception, that the parser only "sees" current fragment. But nevertheless, it would be possible to adorn a reference with a back-link target. In HTML notation
<a name="anchor"></a> <a href="#backlink.anchor">«anchor»=</a>
<a name="backlink.anchor"></a> <a href="#anchor">«anchor»</a>
-- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-20 19:36:32
This is now implemented: click back and forth between declaration and definition -- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-23 23:47:14
in cweb first definition of a section looks like <<section>>= and all the other look like <<section>>+=. I am not sure how much this is better, just a side note.
Yes, I noticed it in the Knuth's paper, describing yet Pascal's WEB. But I thought it's a redundancy. -- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-20 20:04:14
Maybe it should not insert NB. as a first line of a literate script. Or, at least should not insert it unless file extension is .ijs. -- AndrewNikitin 2007-03-20 20:10:02
Yes it makes sense to define well-known extensions, like .ijs, .c, .bat, etc and corresponding line comments. For unknown extensions, it won't generate comments. And the URL should be properly escaped. -- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-23 09:26:54
This is now implemented. Supported extensions: ijs, c, cpp, bat, py, pl -- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-23 23:47:14
It is possible to generate multiple scripts with almost the same content, specifying for='script.ijs' parameter. On wiki page such tags are shown with a tooltip: <a name="backlink.anchor"></a> <a href="#anchor" title="for script.ijs" >«anchor»</a>
-- OlegKobchenko 2007-03-23 09:26:54