Having problems with message search?
Hi
I have been lurking in this group for a while. I have used a kind of "lit prog" technique described in this paper.
for a long time. Two things that I like with this approach is that you work in the code. You can hide (fold) large chunks of code/documentation so you get a better overview of the code and that you can click on a function call (with links to the definition in the same file or another file) and it unfolds in place so you get an better overview of what the function does in that context.
/Mikael
_________________________________________________
Mikael Lexén
Volvo Information Technology AB
Dept 9644, HD2N
SE-405 08 Gothenburg, Sweden
Telephone: +46 31 3221155
E-mail: Mikael.lexen@...
-----Original Message-----I am familiar with both Leo and Elucidative Programming (although not the Elucidator project).
From: Charlie McDowell [mailto:charlie@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 22:08
To: xml-litprog-l@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xml-litprog-l] Leo, Elucidator etc.
They each drift a little bit further from my interpretation of Knuth's LP concept than I wanted to go.
With Leo, the outline is nice (and in fact the tool I'm developing will include a Leo like outline view),
but it just isn't full on LP. I didn't sense that it had a user base that made it the right choice as a
starting point. The outline view is actually a rather easy view to generate. The folded view as I'm conceiving
it is quite different (and was/is the most intellectually challenging/interesting part of what I'm doing).
Likewise, Elucidative programming separates the code view and the documentation view, but links them together so
you can easily move back and forth. To me this is again a big move away from Knuth's concept where the code
and documentation are intertwined.
I'm very much concerned about creating just "yet another" LP tool. I'm trying to make sure I learn from what others
have done, but I didn't see either of these as having important ingredients that I wanted to build on (but I could easily
be wrong).
The folding idea I am implementing it not new, even in the LP literature (although I wasn't aware of this comment
when I conceived off the idea). It was proposed in 1986. Thimbleby observed
(Thimbleby, H., Experiences of literate programming using cweb (a variant of Knuth's WEB). Computer Journal, 1986. 29(3): p. 201-11)
that one "of the disadvantages of literate programming ... is that the programmer cannot view the code of macro bodies in situ at the point of invocation." He goes on to propose "an interactive version" in which the programmer "would press a button and an invocation would unfold into a (name, body) window in position."
I completely agree that it would be great to agree on a DTD. I'd be quite happy to adopt anything reasonable.
That is a simple minor change to the input parsing and save operations.Charlie McDowell, Professor (831) 459-4772 (w)
Computer Science Department (831) 427-2076 (h)
University of California (831) 459-4829 (fax)
School of Engineering http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~charlie
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1077
====
Unsubscribe: xml-litprog-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Post message: xml-litprog-l@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-litprog-l/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Offline 
Send Email