Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> writes: > On 2017/05/03 20:40, Solène Rapenne wrote: >> > > > >> > > > DESCR: >> > > > noweb is designed to meet the needs of literate programmers while >> > > > remaining as simple as possible. Its primary advantages are >> > > > simplicity, >> > > > extensibility, and language-independence—especially noticeable >> > > > when compared with other literate-programming tools. noweb uses 5 >> > > > control sequences to WEB's 27. The noweb manual is only 4 pages; >> > > > an additional page explains how to customize its LaTeX output. noweb >> > > > works ``out of the box'' with any programming language, and supports >> > > > TeX, latex, HTML, and troff back ends. A back end to support full >> > > > hypertext or indexing takes about 250 lines; a simpler one can be >> > > > written in 40 lines of awk. The primary sacrifice relative to WEB >> > > > is that code is seldom prettyprinted. > >> Up ? That would be cool to have noweb in ports > > DESCR seems aimed at somebody who already knows what it does..
Right, maybe it shouldn't turn into a comparison against WEB. > "You may modify noweb and create derived works, provided you retain the > copyright notice, but the result may not be called noweb without my > written consent." > > patches -> modified? Rather modify -> derived work? isn't it? I do not think our ports are derived works (maybe some patches we have really are intrusive?) Anyway, I've just sent a mail upstream, requesting clarification. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
