On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:27:34 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org>
wrote:

>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Scribble[1] supports literate programming. It works in the same way
>> as Knuth's tools - extracting chunks of code from the document and
>> stitching them together ... but it is integrated with the programming
>> environment, so it is a lot easier to use than, e.g., CWEB.
>
>I suppose you don't mean easier for writing C. I don't think Scribble
>would be integrated with the C compiler as CWEB is. But I do think that
>Scribble is in general the correct approach to the problem. I would
>love to stop and learn how to use it. I would love to stop and build a
>LaTeX layout similar to the one NOWEB provides.

Wasn't thinking about C per se - just comparing tools.

Scribble actually doesn't care what is in a "code" fragment - you can
put anything there so long as you don't care to execute it. However,
Scribble documents can be executable if the fragments are in Racket or
are in a #lang that translates to Racket.

Racket does not currently have a translating #lang C, so all Scribble
could do with C code is assemble the fragments, create C souce files
and invoke a C compiler. No advantage over CWEB.

Racket does have a C-99 parser library, so with a shiiteload of work a
translating #lang C could be created.
https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/package/c-utils

The CLang project is trying to do that targeting typed Racket. I think
it is aiming for more modern C. Don't know how far along it is.

https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/package/clang

Jay McCarthy has a couple of doorknob simple packages: C and SuperC
which just take their input and pass it to GCC. They are meant only
for generating simple C executables from a Racket program.
https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/package/c
https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/package/superc

Racket doesn't ignore C - the FFI enables using C libraries - but the
developers don't care to implement languages other than Racket. All
of these things mentioned above are contributed projects.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 19:26:12 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org>
wrote:

>This is getting off-topic---I wonder if we should continue here.

Historically, wandering discussions were not uncommon.
[Been reading c.l.l since early 90's.]

Group etiquette changes over time [though more slowly here than in
some other forums]. Feel free to fork new threads if you like - just
be sure to quote enough of the old so that others can follow the new.

8-)

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 23:35:39 -0500
George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 19:26:12 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org>
> wrote:
>
> >This is getting off-topic---I wonder if we should continue here.
>
> Historically, wandering discussions were not uncommon.
> [Been reading c.l.l since early 90's.]

They still are (comp.lang.c has many at present) but I think they should be
discouraged. Especially now that usenet has fewer people , it is extra
important to keep as many newsgroups as possible alive with on topic
discussion. comp.programming.literate (CPL) exists. The most recent post I
see (using news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de) is

Newsgroups: comp.programming.literate
Subject: [?] noweb for win64
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:33:14 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Tufts University EECS computing environment
Lines: 1
Sender: nr@labrador.cs.tufts.edu
Approved: Norman Ramsey <nr@cs.tufts.edu>
Message-ID: <nh5dma$rcf$1@labrador.cs.tufts.edu>

..The same server shows several most posts. The group is moderated. Whether
there haven't been any submissions since the above post or the moderator has
gone AWOL , I don't know. I think it would be worth it to find out the
current status of the group. If anyone has further posts which are more about
literate programming than about Lisp , I suggest posting them on CPL and
posting a Message-ID on comp.lang.lisp .If the post does not appear on CPL
then the process for enquiring about the status of the moderator can be
started on news.groups .

> Group etiquette changes over time [though more slowly here than in
> some other forums]. Feel free to fork new threads if you like - just
> be sure to quote enough of the old so that others can follow the new.

--
Reminds me of that meme going around. "Those who do not study history
are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO study history are doomed to watch
as everyone else repeats it."
Lucas M
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/12/lemonade.html

On 2024-02-03, Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 23:35:39 -0500
> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 19:26:12 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is getting off-topic---I wonder if we should continue here.
>>
>> Historically, wandering discussions were not uncommon.
>> [Been reading c.l.l since early 90's.]
>
> They still are (comp.lang.c has many at present) but I think they should be
> discouraged. Especially now that usenet has fewer people , it is extra
> important to keep as many newsgroups as possible alive with on topic
> discussion.

Rather, the more people there are in a discussion forum system, the
finer granularity you need in topic specialization.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 19:26:12 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:

> Do you have online examples of these man pages you rendered in typeset
> quality?

Of the source, yes. The biggest such collection would be here
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful>.

An example of viewing a typeset rendition of one of them:

groff -ktman -Tpdf render-batch.1 | okular - &

(I like to put “&” on the end of GUI commands, so the terminal session is
free for another command while I continue viewing the output.)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 19:26:12 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:
>
>> Do you have online examples of these man pages you rendered in typeset
>> quality?
>
> Of the source, yes. The biggest such collection would be here
> <https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful>.

Thanks!

My connectivity is going through hardships lately.

%git clone https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful
Cloning into 'render-useful'...
warning: redirecting to https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful.git/

error: RPC failed; curl 56 OpenSSL SSL_read: Connection reset by peer, errno 104
error: 38105 bytes of body are still expected
fetch-pack: unexpected disconnect while reading sideband packet
fatal: early EOF
fatal: index-pack failed

%git clone https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful
Cloning into 'render-useful'...
warning: redirecting to https://gitlab.com/ldo/render-useful.git/
error: RPC failed; curl 56 OpenSSL SSL_read: Connection reset by peer, errno 104
error: 43377 bytes of body are still expected
fetch-pack: unexpected disconnect while reading sideband packet
fatal: early EOF
fatal: index-pack failed
%

More on this soon.

> An example of viewing a typeset rendition of one of them:
>
> groff -ktman -Tpdf render-batch.1 | okular - &

Thanks!

> (I like to put “&” on the end of GUI commands, so the terminal session
> is free for another command while I continue viewing the output.)

That makes two of us.

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:27:34 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org>
> wrote:
>
>>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Scribble[1] supports literate programming. It works in the same way
>>> as Knuth's tools - extracting chunks of code from the document and
>>> stitching them together ... but it is integrated with the programming
>>> environment, so it is a lot easier to use than, e.g., CWEB.
>>
>>I suppose you don't mean easier for writing C. I don't think Scribble
>>would be integrated with the C compiler as CWEB is. But I do think that
>>Scribble is in general the correct approach to the problem. I would
>>love to stop and learn how to use it. I would love to stop and build a
>>LaTeX layout similar to the one NOWEB provides.
>
> Wasn't thinking about C per se - just comparing tools.
>
> Scribble actually doesn't care what is in a "code" fragment - you can
> put anything there so long as you don't care to execute it. However,
> Scribble documents can be executable if the fragments are in Racket or
> are in a #lang that translates to Racket.

I meant the following. If you write C with Scribble's LP language, it
generates C source files that you'll compile. When the compiler reports
errors, it will mention line numbers, but these lines numbers are from
the C source files generated by Scribble---the compiler doesn't know
about the Scribble files. Scribble would have to inform the C compiler
about which lines in the C source refer to which lines in the Scribble
source. This is what CWEB does. (Credits go to the C compiler for
predicting the usefulness of such extensions.)

It's in this sense that it's easier to write C using CWEB than Scribble.

But I never used Scribble, so take all of that with a grain of salt.

On 2024-02-04, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
> about the Scribble files. Scribble would have to inform the C compiler
> about which lines in the C source refer to which lines in the Scribble
> source. This is what CWEB does. (Credits go to the C compiler for
> predicting the usefulness of such extensions.)

The #line preprocessing directive is a feature of ISO C.

If Scribble has some escape hatch for knowing what the current output
line number and file name is, maybe a macro could be written to
interpolate those into the output in #line 1234 "file.sc" syntax,
along with the code fragment material.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca