-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Obsoleting gapmacro.tex #639
Comments
Some people still create new packages using gapmacro, though (e.g. Bettina) |
I am not exactly sure what the point of this issue is? I mean, what harm is done by just leaving package docs in gapmacro format? Sure, I personally find the GAPDoc manuals easier to read and use, but that's a relatively minor thing, and probably quite subjective, too? Also, I don't see anybody investing tons of effort to convert all these package manuals to GAPDoc; and even if, I am not sure all package authors would accept patches doing that. Finally, as I wrote earlier, there likely will still be new package using gapmacro anyway. |
I've checked the list above vs the newly generated list at gap-system/gap-distribution#49, and ticked only one box there - for FLPSA. So little changes happened here over two years, and also the new TransGrp package has gapmacro-based manual. On the other hand, for the packages in the list above certain progress has been achieved in establishing their public repositories - now only 7 packages from that list do not have known to us public repositories at the moment, while two years ago the picture was diametrically opposite. So in many cases prerequisites have been achieved. Will the same happen in two years with their manuals? I am not sure, but if their number will be reduced below 10, and only several more packages would remain, I'd possibly agree to invest some efforts in converting the remaining ones. There is no rush with this, but should any problem with gapmacro arise, fixing it may prove to be difficult. By the way, we have zero coverage for
We can construct a test like this:
Because TransGrp still uses About the original question: I'd like to keep this issue open as a declaration of the intention that in the long run we would like to get rid of gapmacro. It will help to monitor the situation to decide when is the time to do so. |
I don't see how "having a public repository" is necessary for converting a manual to GAPDoc -- nor do I see how it constitutes progress towards the latter. From my POV, there has been zero progress in the past two years on that, and I expect zero going forward -- unless e.g. you want to sit down and convert manuals. But I'd urge anybody doing that to reconsider -- aren't there far more useful things to do with that time? |
In order to test |
|
I don't see this as a realistic goal these days. Too many packages use this, with nobody available to convert them. On the flip side, it also is unclear why we would want to do this? Sure, we don't want to advertise this, and would prefer if new packages don't use it, but in the end, this is a problem for package authors, not us? Given that there has been essentially no progress since 2016 (other than a few manuals that mostly were converted by me), and last activity on this issue was in 2018, I see no point in keeping this open. |
For anyone who wants to convert from gapmacros to gapdoc, the script But it has some known issues and its output always needs additional manual intervention. These plus usage instructions are documented inside the file. Presumably it could be improved to minimize the extra work needed, but someone has to invest that work into it first. OTOH it was apparently good enough to help convert the GAP reference manual itself, and one should carefully check the result of the conversion anyhow, so I am not sure it'd be worth it. |
I compiled a list of packages still not using GAPDoc.
Among 130 packages that will appear in GAP 4.8.2, there are 33 packages which do not have GAPDoc-based manuals:
It was luck that thanks to @bh11 a couple of issues with
gapmacro.tex
were resolved, but I would like to remind that we do not supportgapmacro.tex
since GAP 4.5, and only provide it for backwards compatibility for authors of the packages listed above. I am creating this issue in order to monitor the progress of the transition to GAPDoc. The first candidates for the conversion are likely those packages with their names hyperlinked to GitHub repositories, so this could be helped via a pull request.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: