From: Tony R. <ant...@ad...> - 2011-11-05 04:15:18
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, would it be feasible to extend the action of "in", maybe have a pre-filter, so that upon executing "in filename.tex", say, reduce ignored everything except text that was between each pair of "^\begin{reduce}" and "^\end{reduce}"? To be compatible, this should only be switched into action when the first (non-whitespace) character in the source file is a backslash. As some of you will have realised, this is all we would need to have in order for a LaTeX file to act both as the source for a computer algebra analysis, and as the LaTeX documentation of that source. I have used ProTeX but that is a bit of a pain having to run LaTeX evry time I change the reduce code. Whereas my request would allow you to update the code or the documentation independently and at will. Tony-- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor A.J. Roberts School of Mathematical Sciences phone: +61 8 8313 3035 University of Adelaide fax: +61 8 8313 3696 South Australia 5005. mailto:ant...@ad... http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/anthony.roberts/ ==.0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000== I have a smoke free office and a Microsoft free computer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk60uEgACgkQ7TX8dTbro1v/OgCfW0TAxjS1OdwKkRWx5XQ+HW9S ohEAnAjTzgEuF3MNJBMAgjgcrc5VrFOe =t9OK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Arthur N. <ac...@ca...> - 2011-11-05 08:21:21
|
At present (and indeed from the very start) the "in" command in Reduce does little more than reset where Reduce is reading its input from. Your suggestion makes the first non-blank character of any input a signal as to whether things are in TeX or are ordinary stuff. Well probably very few existing files have backslashes in so this might not hurt everybody else, but at the very least any implementation of it ought (to my mind) to use a new command (say "literate_in" rather than just "in"). I guess a way to move towards it would to be adjust the code in packages/rlisp/tok.red so that "\end{reduce}" was treated as a single token and thence rather like "comment" with "\begin{reduce}" ending the comment. Then literate_in could bodge the way it started reading a file to pretend that there had been an "\end{reduce}" at the just before the input, and could be careful to restore things neatly at end of file. So in direct answer to your question, it looks to me as if it would be feasible! Do you feel like sketcing an implementation that we coudl review? If there is a thought behind this that all the sources for the whole of Reduce should transition to using a literate form like this I will take a MUCH more cautious view, since I have a LOT of respect for Knuth and view him as a mighty hero, but I view literate programming as a mis-step where I observe that the world at large has not picked it up. I speak to this as somebody who has very very recently been looking at the book of thh TeX source and at the issues of working with the internals of that code. I understand the rhetoric for why it is good, and am very happy to support people who use it, but e.g. at present building the whole of Reduce uses (in effect) "in" to read in the sources of each module, and to adjust that to cope with alternative syntax is a step I would not wish to dash into. I am aware that this is the stuff of flame-wars (and I have watched the Axiom project and at one stage might have been involved there)... So if this would help you then fine let's do it! And if you can do some of the work even better since my teaching load is extreme from now until mid December! Arthur On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Tony Roberts wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > would it be feasible to extend the action of "in", maybe have a > pre-filter, so that upon executing "in filename.tex", say, reduce > ignored everything except text that was between each pair of > "^\begin{reduce}" and "^\end{reduce}"? To be compatible, this should > only be switched into action when the first (non-whitespace) character > in the source file is a backslash. > > As some of you will have realised, this is all we would need to have > in order for a LaTeX file to act both as the source for a computer > algebra analysis, and as the LaTeX documentation of that source. I > have used ProTeX but that is a bit of a pain having to run LaTeX evry > time I change the reduce code. Whereas my request would allow you to > update the code or the documentation independently and at will. > > > Tony-- > - --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Professor A.J. Roberts |
From: Rainer S. <rai...@gm...> - 2011-11-05 08:50:18
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 at 14:45 +1030, Tony Roberts wrote: > would it be feasible to extend the action of "in", maybe have a > pre-filter, so that upon executing "in filename.tex", say, reduce > ignored everything except text that was between each pair of > "^\begin{reduce}" and "^\end{reduce}"? To be compatible, this should > only be switched into action when the first (non-whitespace) character > in the source file is a backslash. That is one possibility. The other is to enter all the documentation as Reduce comments, i.e., start all documentation lines with % and modify LaTeX to ignore the % character. Actually, right now this is one of the methods to document LaTeX code - the whole LaTeX source code itself is documented in that way, and the necessary tools (doc.dtx) are part of Standard LaTeX. Since TeX uses % as comment character as well as Reduce, I am pretty sure that this method can easily be adapted to Reduce. For example, the doc package has an environment called "macrocode" instead of your "reduce" environment. You would need a small driver file that loads the doc package and inputs filename.tex to produce the documentation, along the lines of \documentclass{article} \usepackage{doc} \DisableCrossrefs \begin{document} \DocInput{filename.tex} \end{document} An very simple filename.tex could be (note that there are exactly 4 space characters between "%" and "\end{macrocode}"!). % This is an example Rdoc file % \begin{macrocode} (a+b)**10; % \end{macrocode} will compute $(a+b)^{10}$. Rainer |
From: Arthur N. <ac...@ca...> - 2011-11-05 11:58:42
|
While investigating what might be done I spot the following two conflicting settings as regards backslash: misc/rlfi.red:newtok '((!\) backslash); misc/sets.red:newtok '((!\) setdiff); So after you have loaded one of those "\" parses as setdiff which has the same precedence as "-" and a simpfn that does what you expect, while after the othet "\" parses as backslash with the same precedence as "/" and 'simpiden as its simpfn. So either one needs to ban people from loading both packages at the same time (and if that is to be done I will want tests that generate diagnostics if anybody tries) or maybe one needs to use a different syntax! It looks to me as if in rlfi the token "\" is just being used so that (a+b) \ (c+d); will be displayed as \frac{a+b){c+d} a displayed fraction. So what would people feel if I chenged things there to introduce a token "//" rather than "\" for that notation? That would obviously impact rlfi users, but use of an infix "\" for special division layout feels less standard notation to me than use of "\" for set difference? Comments or thoughts anybody? Arthur |
From: <die...@gm...> - 2011-11-05 19:20:46
|
Good evening. The idea of using in-comment documentation seems better, since there are systems built with the purpose of processing code documentation and outputting it in Html, LaTeX or PDF. Some examples are Javadoc for Java or and Doxygen is an option for C-like languages. For Reduce, ROBOdoc may be a good option. http://rfsber.home.xs4all.nl/Robo/index.html It can be used by configuring it to employ a tex-like comments syntax (which reduce has) http://rfsber.home.xs4all.nl/Robo/manual.html#id2496750 This way, it would be possible to document code without modifying the input-output system. 2011/11/5 Rainer Schöpf <rai...@gm...> > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 at 14:45 +1030, Tony Roberts wrote: > > > would it be feasible to extend the action of "in", maybe have a > > pre-filter, so that upon executing "in filename.tex", say, reduce > > ignored everything except text that was between each pair of > > "^\begin{reduce}" and "^\end{reduce}"? To be compatible, this should > > only be switched into action when the first (non-whitespace) character > > in the source file is a backslash. > > That is one possibility. The other is to enter all the documentation as > Reduce > comments, i.e., start all documentation lines with % and modify LaTeX to > ignore > the % character. > > Actually, right now this is one of the methods to document LaTeX code - the > whole LaTeX source code itself is documented in that way, and the necessary > tools (doc.dtx) are part of Standard LaTeX. Since TeX uses % as comment > character as well as Reduce, I am pretty sure that this method can easily > be > adapted to Reduce. For example, the doc package has an environment called > "macrocode" instead of your "reduce" environment. > > You would need a small driver file that loads the doc package and inputs > filename.tex to produce the documentation, along the lines of > > \documentclass{article} > \usepackage{doc} > \DisableCrossrefs > \begin{document} > \DocInput{filename.tex} > \end{document} > > An very simple filename.tex could be (note that there are exactly 4 space > characters between "%" and "\end{macrocode}"!). > > % This is an example Rdoc file > % \begin{macrocode} > (a+b)**10; > % \end{macrocode} > will compute $(a+b)^{10}$. > > Rainer > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 > _______________________________________________ > Reduce-algebra-developers mailing list > Red...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reduce-algebra-developers > -- Diego Esteban Alonso Blas. Becario Predoctoral UCM. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación. Facultad de Informática. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. |
From: Tony R. <ant...@ad...> - 2011-11-06 01:26:37
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, thanks for all your suggestions. I think Robodoc or dtx-like will work. However, I believe I have worked with equivalent systems and while easily workable, they are both a bit of a pain. * Robodoc looks equivalent to ProTeX package for LaTeX which is what I do but it involves extra steps that slows me down. * dtx-like I have used for my matlab/octave DAE package and while beautifully flexible, I find it such a pain having to always start all LaTeX lines with % etc Unfortunately, upon looking at tok.red I doubt I have the expertise to fiddle with it successfully, Tony On 6/11/11 5:49 AM, die...@gm... wrote: > Good evening. > > The idea of using in-comment documentation seems better, since there > are systems built with the purpose of processing code documentation > and outputting it in Html, LaTeX or PDF. Some examples are Javadoc > for Java or and Doxygen is an option for C-like languages. For > Reduce, ROBOdoc may be a good option. > http://rfsber.home.xs4all.nl/Robo/index.html > > It can be used by configuring it to employ a tex-like comments > syntax (which reduce has) > http://rfsber.home.xs4all.nl/Robo/manual.html#id2496750 > > This way, it would be possible to document code without modifying > the input-output system. > > 2011/11/5 Rainer Schöpf <rai...@gm... > <mailto:rai...@gm...>> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 at 14:45 +1030, Tony Roberts wrote: > > > would it be feasible to extend the action of "in", maybe have a > > pre-filter, so that upon executing "in filename.tex", say, reduce > > ignored everything except text that was between each pair of > > "^\begin{reduce}" and "^\end{reduce}"? To be compatible, > this should > > only be switched into action when the first (non-whitespace) > character > > in the source file is a backslash. > > That is one possibility. The other is to enter all the > documentation as Reduce > comments, i.e., start all documentation lines with % and modify > LaTeX to ignore > the % character. > > Actually, right now this is one of the methods to document LaTeX > code - the > whole LaTeX source code itself is documented in that way, and > the necessary > tools (doc.dtx) are part of Standard LaTeX. Since TeX uses % as > comment > character as well as Reduce, I am pretty sure that this method > can easily be > adapted to Reduce. For example, the doc package has an > environment called > "macrocode" instead of your "reduce" environment. > > You would need a small driver file that loads the doc package > and inputs > filename.tex to produce the documentation, along the lines of > > \documentclass{article} > \usepackage{doc} > \DisableCrossrefs > \begin{document} > \DocInput{filename.tex} > \end{document} > > An very simple filename.tex could be (note that there are > exactly 4 space > characters between "%" and "\end{macrocode}"!). > > % This is an example Rdoc file > % \begin{macrocode} > (a+b)**10; > % \end{macrocode} > will compute $(a+b)^{10}$. > > Rainer > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 > _______________________________________________ > Reduce-algebra-developers mailing list > Red...@li... > <mailto:Red...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reduce-algebra-developers > > > > > -- > Diego Esteban Alonso Blas. > Becario Predoctoral UCM. > Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación. > Facultad de Informática. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. > - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor A.J. Roberts School of Mathematical Sciences phone: +61 8 8313 3035 University of Adelaide fax: +61 8 8313 3696 South Australia 5005. mailto:ant...@ad... http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/anthony.roberts/ ==.0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000== I have a smoke free office and a Microsoft free computer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk614kIACgkQ7TX8dTbro1s2RgCeNw2vgOYt/Ink1Y7DPpt7EtaA A8YAoJqu6sXOXkPbY8ne/4IjpxieCfdo =JUIw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Arthur N. <ac...@ca...> - 2011-11-06 15:23:15
|
I observe that others (probably including myself) feel happier with putting TeX within Reduce comments rather than sort of the other way around - but my overall stance is that different people can legitimately wish to do things their own way with files that are theirs. So without any suggestion that it is something that Reduce as a whole wants to adopt, I have hacked in some code! The string of characters "\end{reduce}" should introduce a comment (as far as Reduce is concerned) that is ended by "\begin{reduce}". These are detected without regard to whether they are at the start of a line, but probably now within Reduce comments or strings. I hope very much that the string "\end{reduce}" could not legitimately arise as valid Reduce input otherwise, and am encouraged in that belief by the fact that "\" is only used in limited places and "end" is a reserved word. Alongside the command "in" that reads one or more files there is now an "in_tex". The way that works is that it sticks the string "\end{reduce}" to be processed as if it was there just before the file you read. The effect should be that if you have TeX stuff in your file that only the bits from \begin{reduce} to \end{reduce} get processed by Reduce. There is no attempt to look at file contents to see if this is wanted, so you need to know whether you are wanting to read in one of these special files or not. The implementation is crude - but as far as anybody not using is is concerned it merely adds a few lines of code that are not execured unless somebody says "\end" and an extra test when a "\" occurs in the input. Anybody selecting new Reduce files to parse from should beware if there could be any chance of them wanting to switch inputs when the existing tokeniser had just seen say "\end{reducX" in that at that stage it will have just returned the "\" and pushed back the "end{reducX" into a look-ahead buffer that would need saving and restoring. Indeed the input "\end" leads to that stort of behaviour, however the special status and treatment of the word "end" means I hope that no valid cases of that can ever arise! If another developer hates this being present they may remove it! I rather hate my code - if only because rlisp/tok.red has to be coded in a meagre subset of rlisp with loads of goto statements because of its use early in bootstrapping. If this is close to what was asked about maybe it will help and I could perhaps tinker around the edges. But maybe the scheme that embeds TeX after "%" comment markers within Reduce code is also useful. I am not using either at present!!! Arthur |
From: <die...@gm...> - 2011-11-07 00:00:29
|
The problem seems to be that you have a LaTeX document which contains Reduce code wrapped in \begin{reduce}-\end{reduce} blocks. The goal is to use the same file for LaTeX and Reduce, in order to avoid duplication. I suppose that you want to split the code in discontiguous blocks (otherwise you could write a .red file and use Listings http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Packages/Listings). An easy solution for this problem would be to extract the Reduce code out of the .tex file. This may be enough: vim -e -s -c 'g/\\begin{reduce}/+1,/\\end{reduce}/-1 p' -cq texfile.tex > reducefile.red http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/view/3202/display-a-block-of-text-with-vim-with-offset-like-with-awk I have tried with a handmade file, and it seems to work. You only must take care of putting no reduce code in the lines in which the \begin{reduce} and \end{reduce} statements appear. 2011/11/6 Arthur Norman <ac...@ca...> > I observe that others (probably including myself) feel happier with > putting TeX within Reduce comments rather than sort of the other way > around - but my overall stance is that different people can legitimately > wish to do things their own way with files that are theirs. So without any > suggestion that it is something that Reduce as a whole wants to adopt, I > have hacked in some code! > > The string of characters "\end{reduce}" should introduce a comment (as far > as Reduce is concerned) that is ended by "\begin{reduce}". These are > detected without regard to whether they are at the start of a line, but > probably now within Reduce comments or strings. I hope very much that the > string "\end{reduce}" could not legitimately arise as valid Reduce input > otherwise, and am encouraged in that belief by the fact that "\" is only > used in limited places and "end" is a reserved word. > > Alongside the command "in" that reads one or more files there is now an > "in_tex". The way that works is that it sticks the string "\end{reduce}" > to be processed as if it was there just before the file you read. The > effect should be that if you have TeX stuff in your file that only the > bits from \begin{reduce} to \end{reduce} get processed by Reduce. There is > no attempt to look at file contents to see if this is wanted, so you need > to know whether you are wanting to read in one of these special files or > not. > > The implementation is crude - but as far as anybody not using is is > concerned it merely adds a few lines of code that are not execured > unless somebody says "\end" and an extra test when a "\" occurs in the > input. > > Anybody selecting new Reduce files to parse from should > beware if there could be any chance of them wanting to switch inputs when > the existing tokeniser had just seen say "\end{reducX" in that at that > stage it will have just returned the "\" and pushed back the "end{reducX" > into a look-ahead buffer that would need saving and restoring. Indeed the > input "\end" leads to that stort of behaviour, however the special status > and treatment of the word "end" means I hope that no valid cases of that > can ever arise! > > If another developer hates this being present they may remove it! I rather > hate my code - if only because rlisp/tok.red has to be coded in a meagre > subset of rlisp with loads of goto statements because of its use early in > bootstrapping. > > If this is close to what was asked about maybe it will help and I could > perhaps tinker around the edges. But maybe the scheme that embeds TeX > after "%" comment markers within Reduce code is also useful. I am not > using either at present!!! > > Arthur > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 > _______________________________________________ > Reduce-algebra-developers mailing list > Red...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reduce-algebra-developers > -- Diego Esteban Alonso Blas. Becario Predoctoral UCM. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación. Facultad de Informática. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. |
From: Tony R. <ant...@ad...> - 2011-11-09 12:12:13
Attachments:
example.tex
example.pdf
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, the new in_tex command works beautifully in the attached example. Will soon try it on serious code. Thanks Arthur, Tony On 7/11/11 1:53 AM, Arthur Norman wrote: > I observe that others (probably including myself) feel happier > with putting TeX within Reduce comments rather than sort of the > other way around - but my overall stance is that different people > can legitimately wish to do things their own way with files that > are theirs. So without any suggestion that it is something that > Reduce as a whole wants to adopt, I have hacked in some code! > > The string of characters "\end{reduce}" should introduce a comment > (as far as Reduce is concerned) that is ended by "\begin{reduce}". > These are detected without regard to whether they are at the start > of a line, but probably now within Reduce comments or strings. I > hope very much that the string "\end{reduce}" could not > legitimately arise as valid Reduce input otherwise, and am > encouraged in that belief by the fact that "\" is only used in > limited places and "end" is a reserved word. > > Alongside the command "in" that reads one or more files there is > now an "in_tex". The way that works is that it sticks the string > "\end{reduce}" to be processed as if it was there just before the > file you read. The effect should be that if you have TeX stuff in > your file that only the bits from \begin{reduce} to \end{reduce} > get processed by Reduce. There is no attempt to look at file > contents to see if this is wanted, so you need to know whether you > are wanting to read in one of these special files or not. > > The implementation is crude - but as far as anybody not using is > is concerned it merely adds a few lines of code that are not > execured unless somebody says "\end" and an extra test when a "\" > occurs in the input. > > Anybody selecting new Reduce files to parse from should beware if > there could be any chance of them wanting to switch inputs when > the existing tokeniser had just seen say "\end{reducX" in that at > that stage it will have just returned the "\" and pushed back the > "end{reducX" into a look-ahead buffer that would need saving and > restoring. Indeed the input "\end" leads to that stort of > behaviour, however the special status and treatment of the word > "end" means I hope that no valid cases of that can ever arise! > > If another developer hates this being present they may remove it! > I rather hate my code - if only because rlisp/tok.red has to be > coded in a meagre subset of rlisp with loads of goto statements > because of its use early in bootstrapping. > > If this is close to what was asked about maybe it will help and I > could perhaps tinker around the edges. But maybe the scheme that > embeds TeX after "%" comment markers within Reduce code is also > useful. I am not using either at present!!! > > Arthur > - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor A.J. Roberts School of Mathematical Sciences phone: +61 8 8313 3035 University of Adelaide fax: +61 8 8313 3696 South Australia 5005. mailto:ant...@ad... http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/anthony.roberts/ ==.0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000== I have a smoke free office and a Microsoft free computer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk66bg0ACgkQ7TX8dTbro1vvtACeLXA2zE/kLDVtxSYckWDHrndR 5icAniFfgj+Isw206gD3rkuLtGe7o+CO =ssgy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Tony R. <ant...@ad...> - 2011-11-27 22:28:22
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, have created a little LaTeX style file to help use "in_tex" to combine reduce code and LaTeX documentation. Get it, and an example source, by downloading http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/anthony.roberts/exampleReduce.tex Tony On 7/11/11 1:53 AM, Arthur Norman wrote: > I observe that others (probably including myself) feel happier > with putting TeX within Reduce comments rather than sort of the > other way around - but my overall stance is that different people > can legitimately wish to do things their own way with files that > are theirs. So without any suggestion that it is something that > Reduce as a whole wants to adopt, I have hacked in some code! > > The string of characters "\end{reduce}" should introduce a comment > (as far as Reduce is concerned) that is ended by "\begin{reduce}". > These are detected without regard to whether they are at the start > of a line, but probably now within Reduce comments or strings. I > hope very much that the string "\end{reduce}" could not > legitimately arise as valid Reduce input otherwise, and am > encouraged in that belief by the fact that "\" is only used in > limited places and "end" is a reserved word. > > Alongside the command "in" that reads one or more files there is > now an "in_tex". The way that works is that it sticks the string > "\end{reduce}" to be processed as if it was there just before the > file you read. The effect should be that if you have TeX stuff in > your file that only the bits from \begin{reduce} to \end{reduce} > get processed by Reduce. There is no attempt to look at file > contents to see if this is wanted, so you need to know whether you > are wanting to read in one of these special files or not. > > The implementation is crude - but as far as anybody not using is > is concerned it merely adds a few lines of code that are not > execured unless somebody says "\end" and an extra test when a "\" > occurs in the input. > > Anybody selecting new Reduce files to parse from should beware if > there could be any chance of them wanting to switch inputs when > the existing tokeniser had just seen say "\end{reducX" in that at > that stage it will have just returned the "\" and pushed back the > "end{reducX" into a look-ahead buffer that would need saving and > restoring. Indeed the input "\end" leads to that stort of > behaviour, however the special status and treatment of the word > "end" means I hope that no valid cases of that can ever arise! > > If another developer hates this being present they may remove it! > I rather hate my code - if only because rlisp/tok.red has to be > coded in a meagre subset of rlisp with loads of goto statements > because of its use early in bootstrapping. > > If this is close to what was asked about maybe it will help and I > could perhaps tinker around the edges. But maybe the scheme that > embeds TeX after "%" comment markers within Reduce code is also > useful. I am not using either at present!!! > > Arthur > - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor A.J. Roberts School of Mathematical Sciences phone: +61 8 8313 3035 University of Adelaide fax: +61 8 8313 3696 South Australia 5005. mailto:ant...@ad... http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/anthony.roberts/ ==.0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000== I have a smoke free office and a Microsoft free computer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7SuXIACgkQ7TX8dTbro1vUXwCfYvcf7fel5wKxyOYsmcZ12F7U 994An2o7hgAj4GAN6lUFtYiH8XHmelXE =F5SN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |