Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A3F63F6C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:37 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3F63F6C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: {1} .sty metacomments for smart editors Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 13:20:37 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Dave Love" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 645 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3F63F6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm proposing to creep some featurism into the doc system (with FMi's approval) and am after suggestions about the form it should take. [This = isn't LaTeX3-specific but I'd hope it would be useful for ltx3 if it proves practical.] The idea is to place metacomments in .sty files which smart text editors = (in particular) can use to get information about the `exported' (user = interface) macros for that particular style. The information would be useful for = word completion and spelling checking, at least. (The auc-tex emacs mode = currently has such information hard-wired for a number of common styles.) If the = editor has access to the \documentstyle line or suitable alternative = instructions it can poke about in the appropriate style files rather than using its own database. Such information could be written out by a run with doc.sty on the basis = of \Describe{Macro,Env} commands in the .doc file and subsequently included = in the docstrip'ped .sty file. That's easy enough, but if it's to be = generally useful the result ought to be somewhat standardised and in a form = suitable for use by as many editors or other tools as possible. I don't know of any editing system that does this kind of thing at = present -- at least for LaTeX .sty files -- and the only smart editor I'm familiar = with is emacs, which presumably could cope with any such convention :-). I'd = be interested to hear of any previous work like this and find out what = editors other than emacs could work this way and with what sort of data in the (forlorn!) hope of finding a convention that would suit most. My initial guess at something suitable for emacs would be lines near the = top of the file like %%Interface: (macro []) where is obtained from an optional argument to \DescribeMacro. Would conventions for supplying other information this way be useful = (along the lines of the PostScript structuring conventions)? Mail me (d.love@dl.ac.uk) direct and I'll summarise if appropriate. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3F63F6C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} .sty metacomments for smart editors

I'm proposing to creep some featurism into the doc = system (with FMi's
approval) and am after suggestions about the form it = should take.  [This isn't
LaTeX3-specific but I'd hope it would be useful for = ltx3 if it proves
practical.]

The idea is to place metacomments in .sty files which = smart text editors (in
particular) can use to get information about the = `exported' (user interface)
macros for that particular style.  The = information would be useful for word
completion and spelling checking, at least.  = (The auc-tex emacs mode currently
has such information hard-wired for a number of = common styles.)  If the editor
has access to the \documentstyle line or suitable = alternative instructions it
can poke about in the appropriate style files rather = than using its own
database.

Such information could be written out by a run with = doc.sty on the basis of
\Describe{Macro,Env} commands in the .doc file and = subsequently included in
the docstrip'ped .sty file.  That's easy enough, = but if it's to be generally
useful the result ought to be somewhat standardised = and in a form suitable for
use by as many editors or other tools as = possible.

I don't know of any editing system that does this kind = of thing at present --
at least for LaTeX .sty files -- and the only smart = editor I'm familiar with
is emacs, which presumably could cope with any such = convention :-).  I'd be
interested to hear of any previous work like this and = find out what editors
other than emacs could work this way and with what = sort of data in the
(forlorn!) hope of finding a convention that would = suit most.

My initial guess at something suitable for emacs would = be lines near the top
of the file like
   %%Interface: (macro <name> = [<number of arguments>])
where <number of arguments> is obtained from an = optional argument to
\DescribeMacro.

Would conventions for supplying other information this = way be useful (along
the lines of the PostScript structuring = conventions)?

Mail me (d.love@dl.ac.uk) direct and I'll summarise if = appropriate.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3F63F6C--