Emacs org-mode provides a markdown-like language, which can be organized
into a foldable outline (e.g., chapters, sections, subsections,
subsubsections). Syntax is provided for headers, ordered/unordered lists,
tables, inline images/figures, hyperlinks, footnotes, and (most importantly
for LP)
> I think we all know this, but just to make sure the point is clear (in some
> of the dicussion here, it doesn't seem that it is), the alternatives are
> not only:
>
> (a) Source code with docstrings (or fancy formatted docstrings with links,
> etc.) and sparse comments, but no other explanato
I think we all know this, but just to make sure the point is clear (in some
of the dicussion here, it doesn't seem that it is), the alternatives are
not only:
(a) Source code with docstrings (or fancy formatted docstrings with links,
etc.) and sparse comments, but no other explanatory text anyw
With respect to "documentation" of open source software...
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
means." -- "The Princess Bride"
The notion that "reading the code" is the ultimate truth for
"documentation" is based on a misunderstanding at so many levels it is
hard t
;
> The thread on documentation that Val started (
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/clojure/oh_bWL9_jI0) is
> getting a little long so I'm starting a related one specific to litprog.
>
> I've made a start on rethinking LP at
> https://github.com/mobile
I've always seen this to document what the system does, as a way to gather
requirements. And the name used is similar to what you propose. Live
Specification or Specification by Example among other names.
It never occurred to me that this could be used for API documentation, and
I'm a completely n
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Erlis Vidal wrote:
> In the past I've used a java tool to write "acceptance tests". Concordion [
> http://concordion.org/]. The idea is simple yet effective. You write your
> documentation in HTML, and later you can run your code that will interact
> with that docu
In the past I've used a java tool to write "acceptance tests". Concordion [
http://concordion.org/]. The idea is simple yet effective. You write your
documentation in HTML, and later you can run your code that will interact
with that documentation and generate a new documentation, marking the
porti
Guys, you really are into the Literate part, those emails are huge! let me
catch up and then I'll reply...
Interesting discussion!
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Mark Engelberg
> wrote:
>
>> In fact, Clojure has a number of features tha
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> In fact, Clojure has a number of features that actively hurt its
> expressiveness relative to other modern languages:
>
BTW, that list was by no means exhaustive. In the past couple of hours
I've thought of a couple more, I'm sure others c
> For example, did you know that
> the book/literate program "Physically Based Rendering" recently won a
> Scientific and Technical Academy Award? (Yes, that's right, a literate
> program won an Academy Award -- the "Hollywood movie" kind.)
An awesome book, b
> PS. Just to be clear, my purpose is neither to attack nor to defend LP,
> just to get clear about exactly what it is, what its presuppositions are,
> what its implications are, etc.
I also do not want to get into defending LP yet again. But I do think
you might have missed the key point by focus
Greg,
I can tell by the amount of work you've put into this document that this is
an earnest attempt at analysis and not trolling, so I'm going to give you
my earnest response: you are wrong on so many levels.
First, you seem to have several misconceptions about literate programming
in general,
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/clojure/oh_bWL9_jI0) is
> getting a little long so I'm starting a related one specific to litprog.
>
> I've made a start on rethinking LP at
> https://github.com/mobileink/codegenres/wiki/Rethinking-Literate-Programming
> .
>
ecification notation, so that we can
express in clear, concise, formally defined, standard set-theoretic
notation the exact meaning of code. That's the general idea, I don't have
a concrete suggestion yet.
There's more stuff on the
wiki<https://github.com/mobileink/codegenres/wiki/
15 matches
Mail list logo
