[J3] [SC22WG5.6517] RE: [ukfortran] Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] JTC 1 plenary wrap-up - Electronic attachments to standard

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 11:30 -0800, Van Snyder via J3 wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 10:11 -0800, Gary Klimowicz via J3 wrote:
> > It's about it being in plain text, not in PDF form. As an Annex,
> > they're difficult to manipulate textually.
> > As plain text, I can image tools we could write for automatically
> > generating parser definitions (especially for formal definition
> > tools like SDF or Maude). Identifying changes between version would
> > be much easier.
> 
> That could probably be done from the LaTeX source. Would it be
> helpful if Malcolm posted a tarball of it (including the j3 class
> definition), if not for every draft, then for every revision and
> after every corrigendum?
> > On Nov 21, 2023, at 09:54, Long, Bill F <william.long at hpe.com>
> > wrote:
> > Such lists would seem more natural in an Annex as part of the
> > standard. 
> 
> They were at one time an annex, that we decided not to typeset when
> everybody was printing a draft to take to meetings. It might be easy
> to turn it on again, then use "pdftk" or something like it to
> separate it to a different file.

The LaTeX process to create an annex of the syntax rules and
constraints would write them into an extra file, that LaTeX would then
read and typeset at the indicated point. That file could be used,
rather than trying to extract the syntax rules and constraints from the
complete LaTeX source. If the j3 class definition is still set up to
create the annex, collecting the extra file would occur, then, if the
annex as PDF is not desired, simply comment out the line to print it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20231121/3431f218/attachment.htm>