[ESS] Snw files are not weaved by C-c C-c from AucTeX-mode

[Martin Maechler]

>>>>> "RoSp" == Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa at mcw.edu>
>>>>>     on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:26:06 -0500 writes:

    RoSp> A.J. Rossini wrote:
    >> 
    >> You are missing one critical point, and that is that Noweb isn't
    >> restricted to LaTeX.   Noweb (and Sweave) support HTML (and could
    >> directly support RTF) for document markup.   Noweb is
    >> documentation-mode independent, and noweb-mode can be tweaked to
    >> support XML/HTML editing modes with minimal work.  We default to LaTeX
    >> for historical reasons (my dislike of raw HTML editing).
    >> 

    RoSp> I can only speak for myself, but it seems that noweb is over-kill.  For 
    RoSp> my purposes, I would like to see a method of supporting statistical 
    RoSp> package code within latex.  Something backwards compatible like latex 
    RoSp> environments such as Rinput, SASinput, etc.  But, with sweave-like 
    RoSp> functionality that would rely on some multi-mode under-pinnings, maybe 
    RoSp> mmm-mode?  Of course, Tony is the expert in this area and I'm just 
    RoSp> ranting :o)  However, if he or anyone else has any ideas/interest of how 
    RoSp> this might be done, I'd like to hear it.

Two remarks :

o Sweave already allows  *TWO* syntaxes,

  1) the one mentioned earlier in this thread

  2) a ``LaTeX-like'' one  {that nobody uses, at least not from
			    the dozen or so samples I've seen}

  It seems you should look at option '2)' quite a bit.


o Sweave will most probably not change these two syntaxes (in a
  *in*compatible way) since they have been in active use for
  several years now.

  But I think if you are interested, you could propose a third
  syntax, and implement it -- it's all in R --
  discuss and praise it (;-), 
  and then provide patches wrt to the current R-devel sources, 
  so they might be adopted into Sweave eventually.

  It's all "Free" (and hence open source) software, after all..

Martin


    >> The ESS/Noweb approach (which is probably still supported in the code,
    >> though I've not checked recently) is:
    >> 
    >> <<thisChunkName.sas>>=
    >> ** -*- mode: SAS -*- ;
    >> proc mixed ...
    >> 
    >> @
    >> 
    >> 
    >> Originally, and in a historical sense, that should have been either:
    >> 
    >> <<thisChunkName.sas,mode=SAS>>=
    >> 
    >> @
    >> 
    >> or
    >> 
    >> <<thisChunkName.sas>>=
    >> 
    >> @ %mode SAS
    >> 
    >> Or simply recognizing the suffix on the chunk name (with the "default
    >> code mode" being used should the chunk name not have a suffix or even
    >> if the chunk is nameless).
    >> 
    >> 
    >> but I was too lazy at the time to insist (by coding ESS or by convincing Fritz).
    >> 
    >> best,
    >> -tony

    RoSp> ______________________________________________
    RoSp> ESS-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
    RoSp> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/ess-help