[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Where we stand
- To: Alan Bawden <ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
- Subject: Where we stand
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 1986 18:16 EDT
- Cc: cl-steering@SU-AI.ARPA, Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 27 May 1986 16:52-EDT from Alan Bawden <ALAN at AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
When generating documentation myself, I generally stick to a few simple,
readable conventions to indicate -emphasis-, CODE, <meta-variables>,
.section names, etc. Then a couple of TECO macros generally suffice to
convert the result to TeX input or whatever, when the time comes for fancy
output. I don't know if a group can work this way, but it sure would be
nice to be able to work with readable text. I want to be able to get
proposed text in my mailbox, and not have to run it through TeX in order to
read it without donning my kludge-proof goggles.
It seems to me that it would be somewhat easier to create a set of TECO
macros to strip off any TEX formatting stuff you don't want to see. It
takes a serious amount of AI for a teco macro to know whether "I" in
some text is normal English or if it is a variable name that should be
converted to computerfont.
My view is that at least half the time I'm going to be looking at the
paper version of this stuff, and I want that to look halfway decent.
The rest of the time I'll be looking at it on a workstation with a
hi-res screen, and if I don't like the way the TeX input looks there,
it's easy enough to whip up some kludge that display TeX files in some
approximation to how they will look on paper.