[plt-scheme] Literate scribbling question

On May 21, Anthony Cowley wrote:
> Ack! My email was down for a few minutes and I missed the critical
> part of the conversation here.
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Eli Barzilay<eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> > On May 21, Noel Welsh wrote:
> >> I'm struck by the simplicity of literate Haskell:
> >>
> >>   http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Literate_programming
> >>
> >>   In haskell, a literate program is one with the suffix .lhs rather
> >> than .hs. ... to distinguish between code and non-code portions ...
> >> prepend all code with a >
> >
> > Right -- it's very simple, and could very easily be done in PLT with a
> > new reader.  There's no need for Scribble -- any language will do.
> > But...
> 
> This would be wonderful! It would be nice to take advantage of at
> least some of the existing scribble tool chain, though.

Yes, of course.


> >> Very simple to use. Haskell people sometimes write blog posts in
> >> this style, so you can just copy and paste the code to get it
> >> running. Sure, it is less powerful than the traditional LP, but
> >> perhaps people don't really need that power.
> 
> The best part, to me, is being able to type check a document. For
> Scheme code, I can envision including unit tests that are run but not
> necessarily printed when compiling a document.

So that does require further markup hacks...  And more macrowork, if
you don't want these tests to run when using the module.


> > Right -- and personally I agree (I don't like the power of proper
> > LP).  But this is a different subject than what the scribble LP
> > library does.
> 
> I suppose this is the answer to my original grievances. I really want
> something far closer to barely-literate than
> reading-at-a-12th-grade-level.

Yeah, I agree with that.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!