Hi,
First of all let me say that I am currently writing a math text book
where I am using a lot of sagetex and I think it is a great package!
Having said that as a "user" I am a bit concerned that the syntax of
sagetex is going to change if I want to publish the latex sources or
describe examples
I was playing with sageexample environment, didn't quite like what I
was getting (compared to what I planned), and while I was figuring out
a way to suggest a new environment, I found out that Volker has
already timely produced sagecommandline, which made me very happy.
However, after seeing what
On 9/26/10 11:44 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 at 05:15AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
How about foo_sagetex.sage and foo_doctest.sage for consistency.
That's a thought. I'm much more accustomed to using dots as separators,
though.
I suppose that the "latex" way of handling things w
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 at 05:15AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> How about foo_sagetex.sage and foo_doctest.sage for consistency.
That's a thought. I'm much more accustomed to using dots as separators,
though.
> The new sagecommandline environment needs yet another auxiliary file
> because it is based
How about foo_sagetex.sage and foo_doctest.sage for consistency.
The new sagecommandline environment needs yet another auxiliary file
because it is based on the listings package and not verbatim. LaTeX
can feed input directly into verbatim macros, but not into listings
code. On the plus side, list
