Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

130390Re: Vim manual

Expand Messages
  • Paul Isambert
    Apr 12, 2012
      Phil Dobbin <phildobbin@...> a écrit:
      >
      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      > Hash: SHA1
      >
      > On 12/04/2012 06:17, Paul Isambert wrote:
      >
      > > Phil Dobbin <phildobbin@...> 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
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic