[#3741] Re: Why it's quiet -- standard distribution issues — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
I think it's the feature of the mailing list archive to create a threads of
[#3756] RE: XMP on comments — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
> require "xmp"
[#3766] modulo and remainder — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#3776] Kernel.rand — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
How about defining:
[#3781] Widening out discussions — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#3795] Re: Array.uniq! returning nil — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
> As matz said in [ruby-talk:3785] and Dave said in [ruby-talk:1229],
Hi, Aleksi,
[#3823] Re: Array.pick — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
> > Just a general comment--a brief statement of purpose and using
[#3827] JRuby? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Is there or will there be Ruby equivalent of JPython?
[#3882] Re: Array.uniq! returning nil — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
> |look too strange, confusing, or cryptic. Maybe just @, $, %, &.
Hi,
[#3918] A question about variable names... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#3935] If your company uses Pallets, Skids, Boxes, Lumber, etc. — pallets2@...
[#3956] Tk PhotoImage options — andy@... (Andrew Hunt)
Hi all,
[#3971] Thread and File do not work together — "Michael Neumann" <neumann@...>
following example do not work correctly with my ruby
[#3986] Re: Principle of least effort -- another Ruby virtue. — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
> Principle of Least Effort.
Hi,
[#4005] Re: Pluggable functions and blocks — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Aleksi makes a question:
[#4008] Ruby installation instructions for Windows — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
I had to write these instructions for my friends. I thought it might be nice
[#4043] What are you using Ruby for? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
On 15 Jul 2000 22:08:50 -0500,
Hi,
[#4057] Re: What are you using Ruby for? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Johann:
[#4082] Re: What are you using Ruby for? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
[#4091] 'each' and 'in' — hal9000@...
I just recently realized why the default
[#4107] Re: 'each' and 'in' -- special char problem? — schneik@...
[#4114] Method signature - a question for the group — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#4139] Facilitating Ruby self-propagation with the rig-it autopolymorph application. — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Hi,
[#4158] Getting Tk to work on Windows — "Michael Neumann" <neumann@...>
Hi....
[#4178] Partly converted English Ruby/Tk widget demo working. — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Hi,
[#4234] @ variables not updated within method? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
On 27 Jul 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#4267] Ruby.next, Perl6, Python 3000, Tcl++, etc. -- Any opportunities for common implementation code? — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Hi,
"Conrad Schneiker" wrote:
[ruby-talk:04087] Re: OT: Re: P. of least effort -- fragile typesetters
"Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes: > Hi, > > "Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng" <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Conrad Schneiker wrote: > >[...] > > So what would you recommend for producing documents, papers etc? > > I haven't looked around recently, so I don't know if there are any good > answers. > > > Having wrestled with Word, Star Office, eqn|tbl|troff, and hand crafted > > PostScript drawings (ouch!), I'd be interested. Is Lout flexible enough? > > This is the first time I've looked at it. Certainly looks interesting. > Anyone else have any experience with it? I asked a friend, Bennett Todd (bet@rahul.net), who was nice enough to contribute the following along with the offer to correspond with those who wish to take this topic further: Lout is pretty appealing; it's both simpler than TeX, and sufficiently powerful to allow nice-looking output from simple input. It only generates PostScript, but there aren't that many other targets of interest for a typesetter anymore, and if you do happen to have one, GhostScript will probably allow you to do beautiful output to them anyway, so that's really not much of a limitation. But like TeX, Lout is only for typesetting; it's not the choice for rendering to e.g. HTML, or plain ASCII text, or info format, or RTF, or LyX, or .... I dabbled with Lout some years back, but it just never grabbed me, because the markup was as cumbersome and clutterful as LaTeX, and it didn't open up all the output alternatives I like. I switched to using SGML for a while, with the Linuxdoc DTD, and did quite a few documents with that. It's a fine choice for supporting multiple outputs, but once again the source clutter is right up there, enough to put me off a little bit. At the moment I'm enjoying using sdf (listed in Freshmeat), which takes something very close to straight ASCII text and deduces most of the structure from it, so requiring less markup clutter; it can output various formats, and since SGML is one of 'em it can automatically produce many great output formats by multiple translation. I'm waiting for a new tool, currently under development; when it becomes available I expect to be able to use text with essentially no markup at all, pure straight ASCII text, and parse that to deduce doc structure and add SGML markup. Certainly when doing this sort of thing the first target to create is SGML, since it buys you the most, but I think it'll be worth building direct targets for other backends, including re-formatted text (making it a _brutally_ brilliant replacement for fmt(1) or par(1)), nice clean hand-editable portable HTML, and Lout. I continue to like lout for typesetting, even though I hope to not have to hand-write any. /Lew -- Lew Perin / perin@mail.med.cornell.edu / perin@acm.org www.panix.com/~perin/