www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - PDF verssion of D manuals

reply "bls" <killing__Zoe web.de> writes:
Hi,
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=83044

is is an open source ANSI C PDF lib. I guess available on Win. and Linux. //
lib.a.so.dll

hth and hopefully not too OT
Bjoern
Dec 11 2006
next sibling parent reply Jeff <jeffrparsons optusnet.com.au> writes:
Rather than writing to PDF directly, we'd probably be better off 
figuring out some DDoc macros to spit out [La]TeX, then using tex2pdf to 
create a PDF. I'd imagine this would be less painful in the long-run.

bls wrote:

 Hi,
 http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=83044
 
 is is an open source ANSI C PDF lib. I guess available on Win. and Linux. //
 lib.a.so.dll
 
 hth and hopefully not too OT
 Bjoern
Dec 11 2006
parent reply Jeff <jeffrparsons optusnet.com.au> writes:
Come to think of it, if nobody's already working on this, I'd be willing 
to take a shot. Anyone interested?

Jeff wrote:

 Rather than writing to PDF directly, we'd probably be better off 
 figuring out some DDoc macros to spit out [La]TeX, then using tex2pdf to 
 create a PDF. I'd imagine this would be less painful in the long-run.
 
 bls wrote:

 Hi,
 http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=83044

 is is an open source ANSI C PDF lib. I guess available on Win. and 
 Linux. //
 lib.a.so.dll

 hth and hopefully not too OT
 Bjoern
Dec 12 2006
next sibling parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Jeff wrote:

 Come to think of it, if nobody's already working on this, I'd be willing 
 to take a shot. Anyone interested?
 


Feel free to start on it, the only reason I'll not doing it yet is that:
1) W hasn't distributed any source files that use only DDoc macros and
2) This is finals week here.

sometime later this week or next week, I plan to get started on a set of 
macros.
Dec 12 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Jeff wrote:

 Come to think of it, if nobody's already working on this, I'd be 
 willing to take a shot. Anyone interested?


 
 Feel free to start on it, the only reason I'll not doing it yet is that:
 1) W hasn't distributed any source files that use only DDoc macros and


I did put the doc sources up. They still have the odd use of html tags 
in them, but that shouldn't impeded getting the conversion macros worked 
out.


 2) This is finals week here.
 
 sometime later this week or next week, I plan to get started on a set of 
 macros.
Dec 12 2006
parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:
 

 Jeff wrote:


 Come to think of it, if nobody's already working on this, I'd be 
 willing to take a shot. Anyone interested?


 Feel free to start on it, the only reason I'll not doing it yet is that:
 1) W hasn't distributed any source files that use only DDoc macros and


 
 
 I did put the doc sources up. They still have the odd use of html tags 
 in them, but that shouldn't impeded getting the conversion macros worked 
 out.
 


I guess I could do a few conversions. I was kinda hoping to get a 
"official" version to work with, but oh well. If I get any conversion 
done, I'll post the converted version for you and anyone else to use.

p.s. If anyone has converted any of the files, I would like to get a 
copy of it.
Dec 12 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I did put the doc sources up. They still have the odd use of html tags 
 in them, but that shouldn't impeded getting the conversion macros 
 worked out.


 
 I guess I could do a few conversions. I was kinda hoping to get a 
 "official" version to work with, but oh well. If I get any conversion 
 done, I'll post the converted version for you and anyone else to use.
 
 p.s. If anyone has converted any of the files, I would like to get a 
 copy of it.


Just pick one or two of the files to develop the technique. Once that 
works, we can fix the rest.
Dec 13 2006
parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 
 
 Just pick one or two of the files to develop the technique. Once that 
 works, we can fix the rest.


Here is the first attack


PDFs here:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/type.pdf

The table environment is proving hard to deal with. Also, it's looking 
like Ddoc is going to need some sort of find-and-replace for escaping 
special strings (think SED).

and here:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/glossary.pdf
Dec 14 2006
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Here is the first attack


It's a good start. If you can write up the roadblocks you're 
encountering, I can try and figure out a way to deal with them.
Dec 14 2006
parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:
 

 Here is the first attack


 
 
 It's a good start. If you can write up the roadblocks you're 
 encountering, I can try and figure out a way to deal with them.



The problem for tables is that TeX defines tables sizes with a syntax 
like this

\begin{table}[llll]
	% a table with 4 col.
	....
\end{table}

the string that needs to be inserted into the template is the sequence 
of "l", for which there needs to be one for each col. Some sort of 
translation from "4" to "llll" is needed.

---

My first thought on how to do this is to to have a few special case 
macros that are implemented inside the compiler. For instance the "4" -> 
"llll" mapping would be easy to do in D:

"$(REPEAT_STRING l 4)" ==> repeat_string(["l", "4"]) ==> "llll"

char[] repeat_string(char[][] args)
{
	int l = args[0].length;
	int c = atoi(args[1]);
	char[] ret = new char[l*c];
	for(int i=0; i<c; i++)
		ret[i*l..(i+1)*l] = args[0];
	return ret;
}

-------

Another problem that comes up is the need to escape special character 
sequences. Some sort of sed like rule that would be applied to all raw 
text from the input file would be quite adequate.

source.d:
	$(BF hello_world $(SUB earth))

tex.ddoc:
	SUB=_{$0}
	BF={\bf $0}
	s/_/\_/

output.tex:
	{\bf hello\_world _{earth}}


-------

Another problem that showed up (cosmetic in this case) was that in some 
cases the text inside of a macro ended in a \n and caused things to look 
something like this:

  foo(); {\color{green} // comment1
} bar(); {\color{green} // comment2
}

rather than the preferred:

  foo(); {\color{green} // comment1}
  bar(); {\color{green} // comment2}


It would be nice to be able to isolate the end of the string if it is a 
newline. An off-the-cuff solution would be to have "$-" or some such be 
  any and all trailing newlines. Then something like this could be used:

COMMENT=$(GREEN $0)$-

However this would require that either those newlines be striped from $0 
when $- is used, or that a form of $0 be created that always does the 
stripping (maybe $-0)
Dec 14 2006
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:


 Here is the first attack



 It's a good start. If you can write up the roadblocks you're 
 encountering, I can try and figure out a way to deal with them.


 
 
 The problem for tables is that TeX defines tables sizes with a syntax 
 like this
 
 \begin{table}[llll]
     % a table with 4 col.
     ....
 \end{table}
 
 the string that needs to be inserted into the template is the sequence 
 of "l", for which there needs to be one for each col. Some sort of 
 translation from "4" to "llll" is needed.


I'm pretty certain you could write a TeX macro to do that.  Don't ask me 
how though.  :-)  Then DDoc macro would spit out something like 
\some_els{4}, which would then be processed by a LaTeX macro into 'llll'.

Supposedly TeX is a Turing complete programming language, so it should 
be possible.  Just maybe not fun.

But in the end it would probably easier to have ddoc spit out some sort 
of meta-TeX, and use a perl/python/ruby/D script to grep through the 
result for special commands.

I.e. you could have the DDoc macro spit out

\begin{table}[   'l'*4   ]
    ...
\end{table}

And use python/perl to grep for all    ...    patterns and run eval() on 
the text it finds there.

Of course I understand the desire to make DDoc capable of doing this on 
its own, but DDoc macros will probably never be a full-fledged 
programming language, so at some point you just have to give up and use 
something that is.  In fact you could argue that going DDoc->TeX->pdf is 
already such a situation.  Why not DDoc->ScriptyLanguage->TeX->pdf?

--bb
Dec 14 2006
next sibling parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 The problem for tables is that TeX defines tables sizes with a syntax 
 like this

 \begin{table}[llll]
     % a table with 4 col.
     ....
 \end{table}

 the string that needs to be inserted into the template is the sequence 
 of "l", for which there needs to be one for each col. Some sort of 
 translation from "4" to "llll" is needed.


 
 I'm pretty certain you could write a TeX macro to do that.  Don't ask me 
 how though.  :-)  Then DDoc macro would spit out something like 
 \some_els{4}, which would then be processed by a LaTeX macro into 'llll'.


Ooh, using TeX instead of DDoc for this is something I hadn't 
considered. Too bad I suck at TeX beyond basic markup :(.


 Supposedly TeX is a Turing complete programming language, so it should 
 be possible.  Just maybe not fun.


It only needs to be done once though...
Any TeX gurus in this newsgroup?
Dec 14 2006
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 The problem for tables is that TeX defines tables sizes with a syntax 
 like this

 \begin{table}[llll]
     % a table with 4 col.
     ....
 \end{table}

 the string that needs to be inserted into the template is the 
 sequence of "l", for which there needs to be one for each col. Some 
 sort of translation from "4" to "llll" is needed.


 I'm pretty certain you could write a TeX macro to do that.  Don't ask 
 me how though.  :-)  Then DDoc macro would spit out something like 
 \some_els{4}, which would then be processed by a LaTeX macro into 'llll'.


 
 Ooh, using TeX instead of DDoc for this is something I hadn't 
 considered. Too bad I suck at TeX beyond basic markup :(.
 

 Supposedly TeX is a Turing complete programming language, so it should 
 be possible.  Just maybe not fun.


 
 It only needs to be done once though...
 Any TeX gurus in this newsgroup?


I spent a few minutes searching the web (yet again) for decent 
documentation on writing TeX/LaTeX macros, and (yet again) came up with 
nothing useful.  The only book I have (Lamport's LaTeX book) is also 
similarly useless.

That's why I say it may be easier in the end to just go to an external 
language.  At least I know I could whip up something in Python that 
would take me less time to do that getting that one dumb macro working 
in TeX.  :-)

--bb
Dec 14 2006
prev sibling parent "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
 I'm pretty certain you could write a TeX macro to do that.


This should do the trick:



Used as \replicate{4}{l}. I found this snippet - written by David Kastrup  
- in "Pearls of TEX Programming" (2005).

Christian
Dec 14 2006
prev sibling parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Just pick one or two of the files to develop the technique. Once that 
 works, we can fix the rest.


 file:///home/urxae/tmp/ddoc_tex/tex.ddoc
 
 Here is the first attack
 
 
 PDFs here:
 
 http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/type.pdf
 
 The table environment is proving hard to deal with. Also, it's looking 
 like Ddoc is going to need some sort of find-and-replace for escaping 
 special strings (think SED).
 
 and here:
 
 http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/glossary.pdf


I've been messing around with this a bit. Attached you'll find an 
updated tex.ddoc. Tables are now actually tables (not just a giant blob 
of text :)), and section headers are now properly in \section and 
\subsection.
The table handling is far from perfect, though; columns are hard-coded 
to a maximum of 3 colums, each 5cm wide.

Does anyone know how to get HTML-like auto-wrapping cells in latex, 
without having to explicitly specify their width? Or is this not possible?

By the way, there's a missing '$' in the ulong row of the table at the 
top of type.d.


Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 Here is the first attack


 It's a good start. If you can write up the roadblocks you're
 encountering, I can try and figure out a way to deal with them.


Well, it might be handy to have a way to repeat a character N times, 
with N given by a macro parameter.
Then the table macro could accept a number-of-columns argument, 
generalizing it to any number of columns.
Dec 14 2006
next sibling parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel wrote:

 
 Tables are now actually tables (not just a giant blob 
 of text :)),


I just didn't bother because I couldn't to it "right".


 and section headers are now properly in \section and 
 \subsection.


Thanks.

OTOH maybe the whole things should be a chapter and imported/include 
from some other document. The whole thing could then be done as a book. 
Whatever, that's would just be another tex_book.ddoc file.

[...]

 By the way, there's a missing '$' in the ulong row of the table at the 
 top of type.d.
 


oops.


Maybe there should be a dsource project for DDoc macro sets?
Dec 14 2006
parent Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Frits van Bommel wrote:

 and section headers are now properly in \section and \subsection.


 
 Thanks.


The loose word at the top with a trailing comma was just too ugly to let 
it stand, and it was an easy fix...


 OTOH maybe the whole things should be a chapter and imported/include 
 from some other document. The whole thing could then be done as a book. 
 Whatever, that's would just be another tex_book.ddoc file.


Yeah, maybe that's better. I didn't do that mostly because it was 
already \documentclass{article} and I'm lazy ;).
Anyway, it'd be easy to fix, just change the document class to book, 
s/section/chapter/, s/subsection/section/ and probably add a title page 
and table of contents in the DDOC macro.


 Maybe there should be a dsource project for DDoc macro sets?


Perhaps, if there's enough interest.
Personally, it just bothered me that there was such a huge block of text 
that should've been a table, so I 'fixed' it. I think I probably won't 
be contributing a lot to this project, since I'm perfectly OK with HTML 
docs...
Dec 14 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
 Does anyone know how to get HTML-like auto-wrapping cells in latex,
 without having to explicitly specify their width? Or is this not  
 possible?


The tabularx package might do what you want:
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~c603/latex/tabularx.pdf

It requires specifying the width of the table on creation, but adds the  
column-type 'X' that automatically expands to the maximum width.

Christian
Dec 14 2006
parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
Christian Kamm wrote:

 Does anyone know how to get HTML-like auto-wrapping cells in latex,
 without having to explicitly specify their width? Or is this not 
 possible?


 
 The tabularx package might do what you want:
 http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~c603/latex/tabularx.pdf
 
 It requires specifying the width of the table on creation, but adds the 
 column-type 'X' that automatically expands to the maximum width.


Unfortunately, it seems to default[1] to all 'X' columns having the same 
width. This looks kind of bad with the table in types.d, where the first 
column contains things like 'void', 'int' and 'float', and the other two 
columns contain somewhat longer texts...

Another problem is that this doesn't play nice with your other 
suggestion: a \replicate in the second argument of tabularx yields the 
message "! Package array Error:  Illegal pream-token (\replicate): `c' 
used." and no output file :(.
Is there any way to expand this before it's seen by the tabularx 
environment?


[1]: It's seems that it's possible to specify the relative widths, but 
that's also problematic as DDoc doesn't know what they should be, so 
using that would probably require yet another extra parameter to the macro.
Dec 15 2006
next sibling parent "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
 Unfortunately, it seems to default[1] to all 'X' columns having the same  
 width.


The package 'tabulary' seems to do some weighting between column sizes. It  
does not work with \replicate either though.


 Is there any way to expand this before it's seen by the tabularx  
 environment?


Probably, but I don't know how. It only seems to work as a column  
specifier for the native tabular and tabular* environments. Even just  
using the newer ones from array.sty results in this error.

Christian
Dec 15 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
 Is there any way to expand this before it's seen by the tabularx  
 environment?


I found it! (in the documentation of array.sty)

*{N}{string} is expanded to n-times string, so |*{3}{L|} works for the  
table of types when using tabulary.

Finally! :)
Christian
Dec 15 2006
parent reply BCS <spamdump pathlink.com> writes:
Thanks all for the help! I'm no TeX grue, I just use the stuff. I'll be trying
the
stuff posted soon.

BTW I have about 15 files converted to DDoc but a little more than half of them
need find/replace tweaking to escape things like "size_t" -> "size\_t". Anyway,
things progress!
Dec 15 2006
parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Thanks all for the help! I'm no TeX grue, I just use the stuff. I'll be trying
the
 stuff posted soon.


I've updated my tabularx code to use tabulary, result is attached.
I've also made tables with lines, but it seems tabulary doesn't work 
quite right with \texttt in a column; the two longest items in type.d's 
first table get a line through the last character :(.

I used a bit of a hack to get horizontal lines to work right. This was 
needed because my TD macro appends a & at the end of the text, so an 
extra column needs to be generated. The TABLE macro now (re)defines 
\horizline to \cline{1-$1}, i.e. a horizontal line over the first N 
columns. TR then executes this command.
BUG: this probably breaks nested tables unless they use the same number 
of columns :(.


 BTW I have about 15 files converted to DDoc but a little more than half of them
 need find/replace tweaking to escape things like "size_t" -> "size\_t". Anyway,
 things progress!


Yeah, I imagine that automatic sed-like replacement you proposed to 
Walter would be quite handy there...
Dec 15 2006
parent BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
version latest

http://www.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/ddoc.zip

Include about 15 converted files. tex.ddoc doesn't (yet) contain Frits 
van Bommel's work. I'll probably merge that in latter. There is an 
updated doc.ddoc that has some macros added to make the HTML version work.

WARNING: the makefile works (on Linux) but more than half of the .tex 
files won't work because of un-escaped special characters
Dec 15 2006
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Feel free!

Jeff wrote:

 Come to think of it, if nobody's already working on this, I'd be willing 
 to take a shot. Anyone interested?
 
 Jeff wrote:

 Rather than writing to PDF directly, we'd probably be better off 
 figuring out some DDoc macros to spit out [La]TeX, then using tex2pdf 
 to create a PDF. I'd imagine this would be less painful in the long-run.

 bls wrote:

 Hi,
 http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=83044

 is is an open source ANSI C PDF lib. I guess available on Win. and 
 Linux. //
 lib.a.so.dll
Dec 12 2006
prev sibling parent reply Steve Horne <stephenwantshornenospam100 aol.com> writes:
There is a HTML to LaTeX utility in sourceforge...

HTML to LaTeX

http://sourceforge.net/projects/htmltolatex/

-- 
Remove 'wants' and 'nospam' from e-mail.
Dec 16 2006
parent BCS <f d.c> writes:
Steve Horne Wrote:

 
 
 There is a HTML to LaTeX utility in sourceforge...
 


While that would get a PDF version of the /web page/, what I (and I think
others) are trying to get is a PDF version of the /D documentation/.
Dec 16 2006