Talk:MetaPost: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Compiler to MetaPost: new section |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
makes sense to me - fagan |
makes sense to me - fagan |
||
== Compiler to MetaPost == |
|||
I dunno if this is worth mentioning, but there is apparently a compiler of sorts from Haskell to MetaPost: [http://cryp.to/funcmp/]. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 01:21 [[10 September]] [[2007]] (GMT) |
|||
Revision as of 01:21, 10 September 2007
I noticed that MetaPost is sometimes not written in CamelCase (i.e. Metapost). Is this a mistake? - fagan
Hobby uses MetaPost in the User's Guide. He also says it is okay to use all caps METAPOST (in the logo tex font). I think the original wiki link I started editing was from the Metafont page, and it was first-caps only like the Metafont entry, so that kind of stuck in my writing of this page. Ideally, this should be fixed by relocating/renaming the page (and this talk:), and then Metapost should point to MetaPost AndrewKepert 06:45, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Did 1,$s/Metapost/MetaPost/ AndrewKepert 02:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Re: MetaPost vs metapost for the article name -- I have skimmed Wikipedia policies on CamelCase and Naming conventions and figured out that this could be handled via Redirects and Move page all of which impressed me no end (cool wiki implementation or what?) but have not been able to figure out whether this page should be Metapost or MetaPost. I am moving the page, so that MetaPost is the article and Metapost is the redirect. This is consistent with the current set-up for TeX, for which Tex is a redirect. AndrewKepert 03:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
makes sense to me - fagan
Compiler to MetaPost
I dunno if this is worth mentioning, but there is apparently a compiler of sorts from Haskell to MetaPost: [1]. --Gwern (contribs) 01:21 10 September 2007 (GMT)