On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, skaller wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 08:15 -0700, brogoff wrote:
>
> > > [1] Even if, in the long term, I want to remove noweb in order to use
> > > a literate programing style relying on language source code, like
> > > ocamldoc.
> >
> > That is exactly what I wish they had done.
>
> Why?

Getting off topic, but since you ask...

Because, Borg like, I wish to integrate whatever source code I grab into my
own code base, perhaps modifying it, and I don't wish to add yet another layer
of perl scripts and extra  weird tools into my flow. I'd rather Lua-ML be just
like the libraries that are distributed with OCaml.

Also, I don't believe programs are enough like books that LP is worth
adopting. In short I'm an LP unbeliever (behead me!).

> Is there problem with running noweb to extract the source?

That's the first step, then you need to get the comments right. And there
was a problem with yacc stuff, but nothing beyond grunt work, like I said.

> Or is there a problem editing noweb files?

I don't want to edit noweb files. I'm willing to do it once to undo the hard
work the authors put into it, but then it's goodbye to all that.

Back to config files. Other languages like Python and Scheme could also be used
as configuration files, but Lua is especially suitable when "non programmers"
are writing the config scripts.

-- Brian