>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/04/2012 06:17, Paul Isambert wrote:
>
> > Phil Dobbin <phildobbin@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> >> On 10/04/2012 22:01, Andre Majorel wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2012-04-10 18:37 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Putting the documents (manual & reference) into tex I think
> >>>> is the best way to go & will result in a much better looking
> >>>> final PDF from which to print.
> >>>
> >>> What do you have in mind ?
> >>>
> >>> If you just put all the text in a giant monospace verbatim, it
> >>> won't be much better (or worse) that the output of vimpspp.
> >>> Page breaks and page numbering may be easier, though.
> >>>
> >>> If you intend to reflow the text, there is much to gain. But
> >>> then you need to know what is, in HTML parlance, <pre>, what is
> >>> <code> and what is neither. Dunno how easy/hard that is.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, it's essential that the process be as automated as
> >>> possible. EG, program reads /usr/share/vim/vim*/doc/ and spits
> >>> out {man,ref}.ps. Otherwise, the files will always lag behind.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, I have this crazy idea of taking the plain text files,
> >> flowing them into markdown, then converting them into tex to be
> >> typeset & then generating a PDF ready for print.
> >>
> >> All perfectly possible using Pandoc, Vim & Lulu, just a question
> >> of how viable it is.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts appreciated.
> >
> > If you're willing to use the latest engine LuaTeX instead of TeX,
> > I have written a package called Interpreter whose job is to
> > translate input files on the fly before TeX reads them (but during
> > the TeX compilation, it is not a preprocessor, LuaTeX lets you do
> > that). The obvious application (and actually, my motivation) is to
> > be able to write source files without TeX's \commands and
> > \what{ever} (I haven't used those for quite some time now); feeding
> > the Vim's manual directly to TeX that way is something I'd been
> > thinking about, but never done. The problem I fear is that the
> > syntax isn't unambiguous, but it'd be worth giving it a try.
>
>
> Hi, Paul.
>
> Yes, I'd be very interested in trying that. I have LuaTex installed
> alongside Tex & texlive on both my production & development boxes
> (Debian for Prod, OS X for devel).
>
> I don't know everybody else's opinions on the subject but we could
> set-up a GitHub repository maybe to try the ideas out. I'm amenable to
> any suggestions.
>
> Let me know what you think.
For the GitHub repository, I have absolutely no experience in that, so I
have no idea either. Otherwise, if we're going to use Interpreter, then
the first step would be a description of the syntax of the Vim manual,
so that I can start writing an ``interpretation file'' (which gives the
translation between the input and the TeX output) as required by the
package.
Best,
Paul
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
No comments:
Post a Comment