[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference vaxuum::document_ft

Title:DOCUMENT T1.0
Notice:**New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)**
Moderator:CLOSET::ADLER
Created:Mon Feb 09 1987
Last Modified:Thu Oct 31 1991
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:897
Total number of notes:4397

155.0. "PROFILE comments" by COOKIE::JOHNSTON () Wed Mar 25 1987 18:23

I'm teaching a DOCUMENT class this week and thought you'd be 
interested in some new user comments about PROFILE:


1.  The syntax for <INCLUDES_FILE> arguments is different from that
    used for other tags that require symbolic names:

       <INCLUDES_FILE>(get_along_ch\GET_ALONG_CH.GNC)
       <CHAPTER>(Getting Along With DOCUMENT\get_along_ch)

    A few minutes spent in proper PROfile-toilet training, pointing
    out this inconsistency helps most users; but it is disconcerting.
    Perhaps an explanation in documentation would appease the masses
    (at least at this facility).


2.  The explanation of \PROFILE in UG Part 1, Chapter 2 is initially
    confusing.  I don't know if it's a passive voice problem or a
    needs-to-be-stressed problem.  Upon first reading, many users 
    have the impression that you *create* a PROfile using \PROFILE.
    Reading Chapter 5 clears it up.  Maybe rewording the first sentence
    in the \PROFILE description would help?  

    Specifies that an existing cross-reference file...

    Specifies that a cross-reference file *already* created by...

        or ???

3.  Examples of using the DOCUMENT command under \ELEMENT and \PROFILE
    would be helpful.  In fact, an example(s) under each DOCUMENT command
    would be very helpful.  Yes, it would be redundant with Chapter 5.
    Which brings up the next question:  Is it desirable to combine the
    information in Chapters 2 and 5 into a single chapter?  




Rose

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
155.1what's in a (tag) name?VAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERThu Mar 26 1987 08:2824
    Item 1:
    
    <includes_file> declares a LOGICAL name for a file name, whereas
    the other "name-declaring" tags declare SYMBOL names.  I admit,
    there is a lot of similarity in the concept since both are names
    through which you can address something else.
    
    The <includes_file> syntax comes from the DCL DEFINE command in
    which the logical name comes first, the equivalence name comes
    second.  (If you've been around Digital long enough you know about
    the old ASSIGN command in which the ordering of the two arguments was
    reversed.  For about five years I kept the syntax of those two
    commands taped to my terminal, because I could not remember which
    was which.)  So it seems quite "logical" to me that the <includes_file>
    syntax should be the same as the DEFINE command syntax.  Perhaps
    if the documentation pointed out the same parallel it would seem
    "logical" to new users, too.
    
    The tagname <includes_file> could be changed to <define_logical>.
    <define_logical> says what the tag DOES, <includes_file> tells WHY
    THE TAG IS NEEDED (because the element is going to <include> this
    file).                                          
    
    
155.2Supplying file specs as tag arguments.VAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERThu Mar 26 1987 09:1039
    By the way, the tags that take file names as arguments
    (<element>, <includes_file>, <include>, <figure_file>, etc)
    read the file name argument just like any other argument.
    If you are using < and > to surround the directory specification
    in the file name, then the tag translator is going to try
    to make a tag out of your directory specification!
    
    I just tried <includes_file>(foo\<kohlbrenner>table.gnc) and
    I got two error messages.  The first was that <kohlbrenner> is
    an undefined tag.  The second was a failure to open the file
    FOO (RMS said the file specification syntax was bad).  By
    the time it got to opening the file, the file specification
    was something like "<literal>(<kohlbrenner>)table.gnc".
    
    So, (for V1.0 at least) you must use SQUARE BRACKETS in
    all file specifications that are actually going to be seen
    by the tag translator.   We'll be sure to document that in
    each of the tag descriptions.
    
    Note that if I had said                         
    
    <includes_file>(foo\<kohlbrenner.table>table.gnc) 
    
    it would have worked fine because the period would have convinced
    the tag translator that this was not intended to be a tag.
    But if the top level directory had been [EXAMPLE], I would have
    been in trouble still!
    
    <includes_file>(foo\<example.tree>ash.gnc)
    
    In this case, the tag translator would have noted that <example
    is pretty close to <example> and it would have issued an ISTHISTAG
    message asking if you had perhaps left off the ">".  When the tag
    translator sees what looks like a tag without its closing angle
    bracket, it checks to see if the name that it has is a known tag
    name.  If it is a known tag, then it issues the Information-level
    ISTHISTAG message.  If it is not a known tag, then it gives up
    trying to make a tag out of what it has and simply passes it on
    as text.
155.3Your wish is our command chapter.VAXUUM::CORMANThu Mar 26 1987 12:2514
    Rose:
    For your information, we have revised much of the processing and
    book building info. in the User's Guide for Version 1 release. Most
    of your comments in 155.0 are already done: chapters 2 and 5 have
    been combined (after we extracted command and qualifier info. and
    placed it in a command line appendix.)  Also, there is now an example
    for each kind of processing (file build, book build, element build, sub-
    element build). In general, how to do each of these processes is
    explained more clearly. 
    I'll check into clarifying the use of <includes_file> in the U.G.
    as well.
    
    So, it looks like we are on the same wavelength! Thanks for the
    input. Barbara