Finding the Wiki (was: Re: [OS X TeX] Tex to rtf converter)

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 06.08.2010 um 22:11 schrieb <cfrees at imapmail.org> <cfrees at imapmail.org 
 >:

> Sorry. You've lost me.

No, no, I still am able to find you on this list.

> I take it you're saying the code snippets need comments. That  
> certainly sounds like a good point. I don't know anything about  
> COBOL or Elisp although I have heard of them and do know they are  
> not the same thing as TeX.

Both programming languages can use words taken directly from written  
and spoken languages. They are not like C or Fortran or Perl. By  
reading the code one can almost understand what the Elisp or COBOL  
code intends to perform.

> As for it being "only vaguely British", I'm not clear what your  
> point is or, indeed, why TeX would be considered (even) "vaguely  
> British".

It, actually *La*TeX, uses variable names like \itemindent or  
\labelwidth, function names like \addtolength or \newcommand, has the  
concept of \begin{something} and \end{something}. The LaTeX code  
speaks to its reader, is more self-explicable than movies or politics.

> TeX needs different indentation from what?

Different from what Schremmer used. This destroyed all structure. It's  
like writing a word on a short rubber band and then tearing at it  
until it's 1 m long. Probably the word won't be recognised.

> COBOL, Elisp and things more definitely British?

Of course not. They have too many degrees of freedom. Their code can  
resemble the written English language.

> But they would still include backslashes, wouldn't they?


Path names in MS DOS contain as many backslashes as TeX or LaTeX code.  
When a bunch of lines does not look like (La)TeX code, it could  
possibly be MS DOS. Or a code I don't know of...

--
Greetings

   Pete

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists  
elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
		– Bill Watterson, in his comic strip Calvin and Hobbes