% The formatter used is LaTeX

% symbols that could be defined
%
% \dsp	double space, figures on figure pages
% \tr	Princeton TR
% \wbn	use consecutive `{\tt WEB} numbering'




\ifx\tr\undefined
\documentstyle[11pt,noweb,multicol]{article}
\else
\documentstyle[11pt,noweb,multicol,tr]{article}
\fi

\title{Literate-Programming Tools\\Can Be Simple and Extensible}
\author{Norman Ramsey\thanks{Author's current address is Bellcore, 445
South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960; 
send email to {\tt norman@bellcore.com}.}\\Department of Computer Science,
Princeton University}

\ifx\wbn\undefined\else \noweboptions{webnumbering}\fi

\ifx\dsp\undefined\else
\makeatletter
\let\@oldfigure=\figure
\def\figure{\@oldfigure[p]}
\makeatother
\fi



\ifx\tr\undefined
\date{November 1993}
\else
\reportno{CS-TR-351-91}
\date{October 1991\\Revised August 1992, November 1993}
\fi

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{0}
\clubpenalty=10000
\widowpenalty=10000
\makeatletter
\def\refno#1{\nocite{#1}\@ifundefined
       {b@#1}{{\bf ?}\@warning
       {Reference number `#1' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
{\hbox{\csname b@#1\endcsname}}}
\makeatother

\def\remark#1{\marginpar{\raggedright\hbadness=10000\footnotesize\it #1}}
% \def\remark#1{\relax}
\ifx\dsp\undefined\else\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.6}\fi

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
When it was introduced, literate programming meant {\tt WEB}.
Desire to use {\tt WEB} with languages other than Pascal led to the
implementation of many versions.
{\tt WEB} is complex, and the difficulty of using {\tt WEB} creates
an artificial barrier to
experimentation with literate programming.
{\tt noweb} provides much of the functionality of
{\tt WEB}, with a fraction of the complexity.
{\tt noweb} is independent of the target programming language, and its
formatter-dependent part is 60~lines.
{\tt noweb} is extensible, because it uses two
representations of programs: one easily edited by authors and one
easily manipulated by tools.

This paper explains how to use the {\tt noweb} tools and gives
examples of their use.
It sketches the implementation of the tools and describes how new
tools are added to the set.
Because 
{\tt WEB} and {\tt noweb} overlap, but each does some things that the
other cannot,
this paper enumerates the differences.
\end{abstract}

\ifx\tr\undefined
\begin{center}\small
{\bf Key words:}
literate~programming, readability, programming~environments
\end{center}
\fi

\section{Introduction}
When literate programming was
introduced, it was synonymous with {\tt WEB}, a tool
for writing literate Pascal programs~\cite[Chapter~4]{knuth:literate:book}.
The idea attracted attention; several examples of literate
programs were published, and a special forum was created to discuss literate
programming~%
\cite{denning:announcing}. % ,gries:pearls,knuth:literate:book,thimbleby:review
{\tt WEB} was  adapted to programming languages other than
Pascal~\cite{levy:cweb,ramsey:building,thimbleby:cweb}. % guntermann:cweb,sewell:mangle,
%
With experience, many {\tt WEB} users became dissatisfied~\cite{ramsey:literate}. 
Some found {\tt WEB} not worth the trouble, as did
one author of the program appearing in Appendix~C
of Reference~\refno{sewell:weaving}.
Others built their own systems for literate
 programming.  % ~\cite{hamilton:expanding,cvw:loom}. 
The literate-programming forum was dropped, on the grounds that
literate programming had become the province of those who could build
their own tools~\cite{cvw:assessment}.

{\tt WEB}  programmers
 interleave source code and descriptive text in a single document.
When using {\tt WEB}, a programmer divides the source code into
{\em modules}.
Each module has a documentation part and a code part, and
modules may be written in any order.
The programmer is encouraged to choose an order that helps explain the program.
The code parts are like macro definitions;  they have names, and they contain
both code and references to other modules.
A {\tt WEB} file represents a single program;
{\tt TANGLE}  extracts that program from the {\tt WEB} source. 
One special module has a code part with no name, and {\tt TANGLE}
expands the code part of that module to extract the program.
{\tt WEAVE} converts {\tt WEB} source to
{\TeX} input, from which {\TeX} can produce high-quality typeset
documentation of the program.


{\tt WEB} is a complex tool.
In addition to enabling programmers to present pieces of a program in
any order, it expands three kinds of macros, prettyprints code,
evaluates some constant expressions,
provides an integer representation for string literals, and implements
a simple form of version control.
The manual for the original version documents 27 ``control sequences''~\cite{knuth:web}.
The versions for languages other than Pascal offer slightly different
functions and different sets of control sequences.
Significant effort is required to make {\tt WEB} usable with a new
programming language, even when using a tool designed for that
purpose~\cite{ramsey:building}. 

{\tt WEB}'s shortcomings make it difficult to explore the {\em idea}
of literate programming; too much effort is required to master the
{\em tool}.
I designed a new tool that is 
simple, extensible, and independent of the target programming language.
{\tt noweb} is designed 
around one idea: writing named chunks of code in any order, with
interleaved documentation. 
Like {\tt WEB}, and like all literate-programming tools, it can
be used to write a program in pieces and to present those pieces in
an order that helps explain the program.
{\tt noweb}'s value lies in its simplicity, which shows that the idea
of literate programming does not require the complexity of {\tt WEB}.

Users who could not find a satisfactory literate-programming tool
have had no option other than to write their own tools.
{\tt noweb} reduces the need for new tools because it is designed to
be extended.
It uses Unix pipes to enable users to change existing
behavior or to add new features {without} recompiling {\tt noweb}.
Even language-dependent features, like
prettyprinting and automatic generation of an index, have been added
to {\tt noweb} without recompiling.



\section{{\tt noweb}} % , a minimal literate-programming system}
A {\tt noweb} file contains program source code interleaved with documentation.
When {\tt notangle} is given a {\tt noweb} file, it writes the program
 on standard output. 
When {\tt noweave} is given a {\tt noweb} file, it reads the {\tt
noweb} source and produces, on standard output, {\TeX} source for
typeset documentation.
Figure~\ref{transforms} shows how to use {\tt notangle} and {\tt
noweave} to produce code and documentation for a C~program contained
in the {\tt noweb} file {\tt foo.nw}.

\begin{figure}
\footnotesize
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(170,80)(0,-40)
\tt
\put(20,12.5){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\ \tt notangle foo.nw > foo.c}}
\put(20,-12.5){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\ \tt noweave foo.nw > foo.tex}}

\put(0,-5){\framebox(30,10){foo.nw}}
\put(15,5){\vector(1,2){7.5}}
\put(10,20){\framebox(30,10){foo.c}}
\put(15,-5){\vector(1,-2){7.5}}
\put(10,-30){\framebox(30,10){foo.tex}}

\put(40,-25){\vector(1,0){35}}
\put(57.5,-23.5){\makebox(0,0)[b]{latex foo}}
\put(75,-30){\framebox(30,10){foo.dvi}}
\put(105,-25){\vector(1,0){35}}
\put(122.5,-23.5){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\strut \tt dvi foo}}
                        % \shortstack{\strut dvi\\\strut \rm driver}}}
\put(140,-25){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\rm\strut \ Typeset documentation for
{\tt foo}}}

\put(40,25){\vector(1,0){35}}
\put(57.5,26.5){\makebox(0,0)[b]{cc -c foo.c}}
\put(75,20){\framebox(30,10){foo.o}}
\put(105,25){\vector(1,0){35}}
\put(122.5,26.5){\makebox(0,0)[b]{ld foo.o {\ldots}}}
\put(140,25){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\rm\strut \ Executable \tt a.out}}



\end{picture}

\caption{Using {\tt noweb} to build code and documentation}
\label{transforms}
\end{figure}

A {\tt noweb} file is a sequence of {\em chunks}, which may appear in any order.
A chunk may contain code or documentation.
Documentation chunks begin with a line that starts with an at sign ({\tt @})
followed by a space or newline.
They have no names.
Code chunks begin with
\begin{quote} 
\tt <<{\rm\it chunk name}>>=
\end{quote} 
on a line by itself.
The double left angle bracket ({\tt <<}) must be in the first column.
Chunks are terminated by the beginning of another chunk, or by end of file.
If the first line in the file does not mark the beginning of a
chunk, it is assumed to be the first line of a documentation chunk.

Documentation chunks contain text that is ignored by {\tt notangle}
and copied verbatim to standard output by
{\tt noweave} (except for quoted code).   
{\tt noweave} can work with {\LaTeX}, or it can use
% insert a reference to 
a plain-{\TeX} macro package, supplied with {\tt noweb}, that defines
commands like \verb+\chapter+ and \verb+\section+.

Code chunks contain program source code and references to other code
chunks.  
Several code chunks may have the same name; {\tt notangle}
concatenates their definitions to produce a single chunk, just as
 {\tt TANGLE} does.
Code chunk definitions are like macro definitions;
{\tt notangle} extracts a program by expanding one chunk (by default
the chunk named \verb+<<*>>+).
The definition of that chunk contains references to other chunks,
which are themselves expanded, and so on.
{\tt notangle}'s output is readable; it preserves the indentation of expanded
chunks with respect to the chunks in which they appear.

Code may be quoted within documentation chunks by placing double
square brackets around it ({\tt [[}$\ldots${\tt]]}). 
These double square brackets are ignored by {\tt notangle}, but they
are used by {\tt noweave} to give code special typographic
treatment.

If double left and right angle brackets are not paired, they are
treated as literal ``{\tt<<}'' and ``{\tt>>}''.  Users can force any
such brackets, even paired brackets, to be treated as literal by
using a preceding at sign (e.g.~``{\tt @<<}'').

Any line beginning with ``{\tt@ }'' terminates a code chunk.
If such a line has the form
``{\tt@~\char`\%def {\rm\it identifiers}}'',
it also means that the preceding chunk defines the identifiers listed 
in {\it identifiers}.
This notation provides a way of marking definitions manually when 
no automatic marking is available.

Figure~\ref{sample-input} shows a fragment of a {\tt noweb} program
that computes prime numbers.
The program is derived from the example used in
Reference~\refno{knuth:literate:book}, Chapter~4, and Figure~\ref{sample-input} should
be compared with Figure~2b of that paper.
Figure~\ref{noweave-output} shows the program after processing by {\tt
noweave} and {\LaTeX}.
Figure~\ref{notangle-output} shows the beginning of the program as
extracted by {\tt notangle}.
A complete example program accompanies this paper.

\begin{figure}
\begin{verbatim}
@ This program has no input, because we want to keep it
simple.  The result of the program will be to produce a
list of the first thousand prime numbers, and this list
will appear on the [[output]] file.

Since there is no input, we declare the value [[m = 1000]]
as a compile-time constant.  The program itself is capable
of generating the first [[m]] prime numbers for any
positive [[m]], as long as the computer's finite
limitations are not exceeded.
<<program to print the first thousand prime numbers>>=
program print_primes(output);
  const m = 1000;
        <<other constants of the program>>
  var <<variables of the program>>
    begin <<print the first [[m]] prime numbers>>
    end.
@ %def print_primes m
\end{verbatim} 
\caption{Sample {\tt noweb} input, from prime number program}
\label{sample-input}
\end{figure}



\begin{figure}
\begin{quote} 
\nwbegindocs{4}

This program has no input, because we want to keep it simple.
The result of the program will be to produce a list of the first
thousand prime numbers, and this list will appear on the \code{}output\edoc{}
file.

Since there is no input, we declare the value \code{}m = 1000\edoc{} as a
compile-time constant.
The program itself is capable of generating the first \code{}m\edoc{} prime
numbers for any positive \code{}m\edoc{}, as long as the computer's finite
limitations are not exceeded.
\nwenddocs
\nwbegincode{5}
\moddef{program to print the first thousand prime numbers}\endmoddef
program print_primes(output);
  const m = 1000;
        \LA{}other constants of the program\RA{}
  var \LA{}variables of the program\RA{}
    begin \LA{}print the first \code{}m\edoc{} prime numbers\RA{}
    end.
\nwendcode
\end{quote} 
\caption{Output produced by {\tt noweave} and {\LaTeX} from Figure~\protect\ref{sample-input}}
\label{noweave-output}
\end{figure}

\section{Using {\tt noweb}}% experience with noweb?

Experimenting with \verb+noweb+ is easy.
{\tt noweb} has little syntax: definition and use of code chunks, marking of
documentation chunks, listing of identifiers defined,
quoting of code, and quoting of brackets.
\verb+noweb+ can be used with any programming language, and its 
manual fits on three pages. 

\begin{figure}
\begin{verbatim}
program print_primes(output);
  const m = 1000;
        rr = 50;
        cc = 4;
        ww = 10;
        ord_max = 30;  { p_ord_max squared must exceed p_m }
  var p: array [1..m] of integer;
            { the first m prime numbers, in increasing order }
      page_number: integer;
\end{verbatim}
\unskip
\hbox{\hskip2em\tt\vdots}
\caption{Part of primes program as written by {\tt notangle}}
\label{notangle-output}
\end{figure}


On a large project, it is essential that compilers and other tools be
able to refer to locations in the \verb+noweb+ source, even though
they work with \verb+notangle+'s output~\cite{ramsey:literate}.
Giving \verb+notangle+ the  \verb+-L+ option makes it emit pragmas
that inform compilers of the placement of lines
in the \verb+noweb+ source.
It also preserves the columns in which
tokens appear.
If \verb+notangle+ is not given the \verb+-L+ option, it respects the
indentation of its input, making its output easy to read.

Cross-referencing of chunks and identifiers makes large programs
easier to understand.
\verb+noweave -x+ uses {\LaTeX}
to show on what pages each chunk is defined and used.
\verb+noweave -index+ adds a local identifier cross-reference after
each code chunk.
The example program accompanying this article shows full cross-reference
information. 


{\tt WEB} files map one to one with both programs and documents.
The mapping of \verb+noweb+ files to programs is many to many; the
mapping of files to documents is many to one.
Source files are combined by listing their names on \verb+notangle+'s
or \verb+noweave+'s command line.
Many programs may be extracted from one source by specifying the names
of different root chunks, using \verb+notangle+'s \verb+-R+ command-line
option.

The simplest example of a one-to-many mapping of programs is that of putting
C~header and program in a single {\tt noweb} file.
The header comes from the root chunk \LA{}header\RA{}, and the program
from the default root chunk, \LA{}*\RA{}.
The following Unix commands extract header \verb+foo.h+ and program
\verb+foo.c+ from {\tt noweb} file \verb+foo.nw+:
% This trick is explained on pages 265--266 of Reference~\refno{kernighan:unix}.}
\begin{quote} 
\begin{verbatim}
notangle -L foo.nw > foo.c
notangle -Rheader foo.nw | cpif -ne foo.h
\end{verbatim}
\end{quote}
The \verb+>+ in the first command directs \verb+notangle+'s output to
the file \verb+foo.c+.
The \verb+|+ in the second command directs \verb+notangle+'s output to
the \verb+cpif+ program, which is distributed with {\tt noweb}.
\verb+cpif -ne foo.h+ compares its input to the contents of file
\verb+foo.h+;  if they differ, the input replaces \verb+foo.h+.
This trick avoids touching the file \verb+foo.h+ when its contents
have not changed, which avoids triggering unnecessary recompilations.

A more interesting example is using {\tt noweb} to
interleave different languages in one source file. 
I wrote an \verb+awk+
script that read a machine description and emitted a disassembler for
that machine, and I used {\tt noweb} to combine the script and description
in a single file, so I could place each part of the input next to the
code that processed that input. 
The machine description was in the root chunk \LA{}opcodes
table\RA{}, and the \verb+awk+ script in the default root chunk.
The processing steps were:
\begin{verbatim}
notangle opcodes.nw > opcodes.awk
notangle -R'opcodes table' opcodes.nw | 
awk -f opcodes.awk > disassem.sml
\end{verbatim}
The first line extracts the {\tt awk} program into file {\tt opcodes.awk}.
The second line extracts the machine description and pipes it to the
third line, which uses the {\tt awk} program to turn it into a
dissassembler.
The disassembler is written to file {\tt disassem.sml}.

Many-to-one mapping of source to program can be used to obtain
effects similar to those of Ada or Modula-3 generics.
Figure~\ref{generic-example} shows generic C code that supports lists.
The code can be
``instantiated'' by combining it with another \verb+noweb+ file.
\verb+pair_list.nw+, shown in Figure~\ref{pair-list-example}, specifies
 lists of integer pairs.
The two are combined by applying \verb+notangle+ to them both:
\begin{verbatim}
notangle pair_list.nw generic_list.nw > pair_list.c
\end{verbatim} 
{\tt noweb} has no parameter mechanism, so the ``generic'' code must
refer to a fixed set of symbols, and it cannot be checked for errors
except by compiling \verb+pair_list.c+.
These restrictions make {\tt noweb} a poor approximation to real
generics, but useful nevertheless.

\begin{figure}
\ifx\dsp\undefined\else\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}\fi
\nwbegindocs{0}
This list code supports circularly-linked lists represented by a
pointer to the last element.  It is intended to be combined with other
{\tt noweb} code that defines \LA{}fields of a list element\RA{} (the fields
found in an element of a list) and that uses \LA{}list
declarations\RA{} and \LA{}list definitions\RA.
\nwenddocs
\nwbegincode{1}
\moddef{list declarations}\endmoddef
typedef struct list \{
  \LA{}fields of a list element\RA{}
  struct list *_link;
\} *List;

extern List singleton(void);    /* singleton list, uninitialized fields */
extern List append(List, List); /* destructively append two lists */
#define last(l)   (l)
#define head(l)   ((l) ? (l)->next : 0)
#define forlist(p,l) for (p=head(l); p; p=(p==last(l) ? 0 : p->next))
\nwendcode
\nwbegincode{2}
\moddef{list definitions}\endmoddef
List append (List left, List right) \{
    List temp;
    if (left == 0)  return right;
    if (right == 0) return left;
    temp = left->_link; left->_link = right->_link; right->_link = temp;
    return right;
\}
\nwendcode
\unskip\hbox{\hskip2em\vdots}
\caption{Generic code for implementing lists in C}
\label{generic-example}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\nwbegincode{1}
\moddef{*}\endmoddef
\LA{}list declarations\RA{}
\LA{}list definitions\RA{}
\nwendcode
\nwbegincode{2}
\moddef{fields of a list element}\endmoddef
int x;
int y;
\nwendcode
\caption{Program to instantiate lists of integer pairs}
\label{pair-list-example}
\end{figure} 

\iffalse
I have used \verb+noweb+ for small programs written in various
languages, including C, Icon, \verb+awk+, and Modula-3.
Larger projects have included a code generator for 
Standard ML of New Jersey (written in Standard ML) and 
a multi-architecture debugger, written in Modula-3, C, and
assembly language.
A colleague used \verb+noweb+ to write an experimental file
system in C++.

\unskip
\vskip0pt plus12pt\penalty-200\vskip0pt plus-12pt
\noindent The sizes of these programs are  % try for better page break
\nobreak
\begin{quote}\nobreak
\catcode`\?=\active\def?{\phantom{0}}
\catcode`\*=\active\def*{\phantom{,}}
\leavevmode\rlap{\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Program&Documentation lines&Total lines\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
{\tt markup} and {\tt nt}&?*400&?1,200\\
ML code generator&?*900&?2,600\\
Debugger&1,400&11,000\\
File system&4,400&27,000
\end{tabular}}
\end{quote}

\else

I myself have used \verb+noweb+ for code written in various
languages, including assembly language, \verb+awk+, C, Icon, Modula-3,
Promela, 
Standard~ML, and \TeX.%
\footnote{Readers interested in another example of {\tt noweb} can see
a published version of one of these programs \cite{ramsey:correctness}.}
These projects have ranged in size from a few hundred to twenty
thousand lines of code.
Other users around the world have undertaken
{\tt noweb} projects of comparable size in C$++$, Modula-2, occam, Parallel C,
perl, Prolog, and Scheme. 
Two colleagues are using {\tt noweb} to write a book describing the
design and implementation of a retargetable C compiler.

\fi

\section{Representation of {\tt noweb} files}

The \verb+noweb+ syntax is easy to read, write, and edit, but it is
not easily manipulated by programs.
To make it easy to extend \verb+noweb+, I have written
\verb+markup+, which converts \verb+noweb+ source to 
 a representation that is easily manipulated
by commonly used Unix tools like {\tt sed} and {\tt awk}.
In this representation,
every line begins with {\tt @} and a key word.
The possibilities are:
\begin{quote}
\leavevmode\rlap{\begin{tabular}{ll}
\tt @begin {\rm\it kind} $n$&Start a chunk\\
\tt @end {\rm\it kind} $n$&End a chunk\\
\tt @text {\rm\it string}&{\rm\it string} appeared in a chunk\\
\tt @nl&A newline appeared in a chunk\\
\tt @defn {\rm\it name}&The code chunk named {\rm\it name} is being defined\\
\tt @use {\rm\it name}&A reference to code chunk named {\rm\it name}\\
\tt @quote&Start of quoted code in a documentation chunk\\
\tt @endquote&End of quoted code in a documentation chunk\\
\tt @file {\rm\it filename}&Name of the file from which the chunks came\\
\tt @line $n$&Next text line came from source line $n$ in current file\\
\tt @index defn {\rm\it ident}&The current chunk contains a definition of {\rm\it ident}\\
\tt @index use {\rm\it ident}&The current chunk contains a use of {\rm\it ident}\\
\tt @index nl {\rm\it ident}&A newline that is part of markup, not part of the chunk\\
\tt @literal {\rm\it text}&{\tt noweave} copies {\rm\it text} to output\\
\end{tabular}}
\end{quote}
{\tt markup} numbers each chunk, starting at~0.
It also recognizes and undoes the escape sequence for double brackets,
e.g.~converting ``{\tt @<<}'' to ``{\tt <<}''.
{\tt markup}'s output represents a sequence of files.
Each file is represented by a ``{\tt @file~{\rm\it filename}}'' line,
followed by a sequence of chunks.

The representation of a documentation chunk is
\begin{quote}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\tt @begin docs $n$&where $n$ is the chunk number.\\
{\it docline}&repeated an arbitrary number of times.\\
\tt @end docs $n$
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
where {\it docline} may be {\tt @text}, {\tt @nl}, {\tt @quote},
{\tt @endquote}, {\tt @file}, {\tt @line}, or {\tt @index}.
Every {\tt @nl} or {\tt @index~nl} corresponds to a newline in the original file.
{\tt markup} guarantees that quotes are balanced and not nested.

\vskip0pt plus12pt\penalty-200\vskip0pt plus-12pt
The representation of a code chunk is
\begin{quote}
\leavevmode\rlap{\begin{tabular}{ll}
\tt @begin code $n$&where $n$ is the chunk number.\\
\tt @defn {\rm\it name}&name of this chunk.\\
\tt @nl&The newline following {\tt <<{\rm\it name}>>=} in the original file\\
{\it codeline}&repeated an arbitrary number of times.\\
\tt @end code $n$
\end{tabular}}
\end{quote}
where {\it codeline} may be {\tt @text}, {\tt @nl}, {\tt @use}, 
{\tt @file}, {\tt @line}, or {\tt @index}.

The \verb+noweb+ tools are implemented by piping the output of
\verb+markup+ to other programs.
\verb+notangle+ is a Unix shell script that builds a
pipeline between \verb+markup+ and \verb+nt+, which reads
and expands definitions of code chunks.
\verb+noweave+ pipes the output of \verb+markup+ to a 60-line
\verb+awk+~script that inserts appropriate {\TeX} or {\LaTeX}
formatting commands.

\section{Extending {\tt noweb}}

Having a format easily read by programs makes {\tt noweb} extensible;
one can manipulate literate programs using Unix shell scripts and
filters.
{\tt notangle} and {\tt noweave} have {\tt -filter} options that can
be used to insert filters into their pipelines without changing any
code.
These filters manipulate the representation described in the previous
section.
The results are converted to {\TeX} by {\tt noweave} and to code by
{\tt notangle}.


Filters can be used to change the way {\tt noweb} works; for example,
a one-line {\tt sed} script makes {\tt noweb} treat two chunk names as
identical if they differ only in their representation of whitespace.
A 55-line Icon program makes it possible to abbreviate chunk names
using a trailing ellipsis, as in {\tt WEB}.
To share programs with colleagues who don't enjoy literate
programming, I use a filter that
places each line of documentation in a comment and moves it to
the succeeding code chunk.  
With this filter, \verb+notangle+
transforms a literate 
program into a traditional commented program, without loss of
information and with only a modest penalty in readability.
Figure~\ref{nountangle-output} shows the results of applying
the filter to the prime-number program shown in
Figure~\ref{sample-input}. 




\begin{figure}
\begin{webcode}\parindent=0pt
\{ This program has no input, because we want to keep it    \}
\{ simple.  The result of the program will be to produce a  \}
\{ list of the first thousand prime numbers, and this list  \}
\{ will appear on the [[output]] file.                      \}
\hbox{\hskip2em\tt\vdots}
\{ <program to print the first thousand prime numbers>=     \}
program print_primes(output);
  const m = 1000;
        \{ \\section-The output phase-                               \}
        \{                                                          \}
        \{ <other constants of the program>=                        \}
        rr = 50;
        cc = 4;
        ww = 10;
        \{ <other constants of the program>=                        \}
        ord_max = 30;  \{ p_ord_max squared must exceed p_m \}
  var \{ How should table [[p]] be represented? Two possibilities \}
      \{ suggest themselves: We could construct a sufficiently    \}
\hbox{\hskip2em\tt\vdots}
\end{webcode} 
\caption{Output produced from 
Figure~\protect\ref{sample-input} by filter converting documentation
chunks into comments.}
\label{nountangle-output}
\end{figure}



Filters can be used to add significant features.
\verb+noweave+'s cross-reference and indexing features use two
filters, one that finds uses of defined identifiers and one that 
uses \verb+@literal+ to insert {\LaTeX} cross-reference
commands.
In most cases, programmers must mark identifier definitions
by hand, using ``{\tt @~\%def}'', 
but
in some cases, a third, language-dependent filter can be used to
mark identifier definitions,
making index generation completely automatic.
Kostas Oikonomou of AT\&T Bell Labs and Conrado Martinez-Parra of 
the Univ.\ Politecnica de Catalunya in Barcelona have written filters
that add prettyprinting to {\tt noweb}.
Oikonomou's filters prettyprint Icon and Object-Oriented Turing;
Martinez-Parra's filter prettyprints a variant of Dijkstra's language
of guarded commands.


\section{Comparing {\tt WEB} and {\tt noweb}}

Unlike {\tt WEB},
\verb+noweb+ is independent of the target programming language.
{\tt WEB} tools can be generated for many programming languages, 
but those languages must be lexically similar to C.
For example, {\tt WEB} can't handle the \verb+awk+ regular-expression
notation ``\verb+/+\ldots\verb+/+''; every such expression must quoted
using {\tt WEB}'s ``verbatim'' control sequence.
The effort required to 
generate {\tt WEB} tools is significant; the prospective user must
write a specification of several hundred 
lines.

Being independent of the target programming language makes {\tt noweb}
simpler, but it also means that {\tt noweb} can do less.
Most of the differences between {\tt WEB} and {\tt noweb} arise
because {\tt WEB} has language-dependent features that are not present
in \verb+noweb+.
These features include 
prettyprinting, 
typesetting comments using {\TeX},
expanding macros, 
evaluating constant expressions, 
and 
converting string literals to indices into a ``string pool.''
Among these features, 
\verb+noweb+ users are most likely to miss prettyprinting. 


Some differences arise because {\tt WEB} and \verb+noweb+ implement
similar features differently. 
{\tt WEB}'s  original {\tt TANGLE} removed white space and folded
lines to fill each line with tokens,
making its output unreadable~\cite[Chapter~4, Figure~3]{knuth:literate:book}.
Later adaptations preserved line breaks but removed other white space.
By default, \verb+notangle+ preserves whitespace and maintains
indentation when expanding chunks.
It can therefore be used with
languages like Miranda and
Haskell, in which indentation is significant.
{\tt TANGLE} cannot.

{\tt WEB}'s {\tt WEAVE} assigns a number to each chunk, and its index
and cross-reference
information refer to chunk numbers, not page numbers.
\verb+noweb+ uses {\LaTeX} to emit index and cross-reference information that
refer to page numbers.
Anyone who has read a large literate program will
appreciate the difference.

{\tt WEB} works poorly with \LaTeX; \LaTeX\ constructs cannot
be used in {\tt WEB} source, and getting {\tt WEAVE} output
to work in \LaTeX\ documents requires tedious adjustments by hand.
\verb+noweb+ works with both plain {\TeX} and {\LaTeX}.
Both {\tt WEAVE} and {\tt noweave} depend on the text formatter in two
ways: the source of the program itself, and the supporting macros.
{\tt WEAVE}'s source (written using {\tt WEB} for C) is
several thousand lines long, and the formatting code is not isolated.
{\tt noweave}'s source is a 200-line shell script, and it uses a
60-line {\tt awk} program to generate {\TeX}.
Both 
{\tt WEAVE} and {\tt noweave} use about 200 lines of supporting macros
for plain {\TeX}.
\verb+noweb+ uses another 300 lines to support {\LaTeX}, primarily
because the page-based cross-reference mechanism is complex.

{\tt noweb} has
two features that weren't in the original {\tt WEB}, but that appeared in
some of {\tt WEB}'s later adaptations;
{\tt notangle} can extract more than one program from
a single source file, and it can give a compiler the original locations
of source lines.
{\tt noweb} has a related feature not found in the {\tt WEB} variants;
{\tt noweave} adds no newlines to its output, making it easy to find
the sources of {\TeX} or {\LaTeX} errors.
For example, an error on line~634 of a generated
{\TeX} file is caused by a problem on line~634 of the
corresponding {\tt noweb} file.

Reviewers have had many expectations of literate-programming
tools~\cite{thimbleby:review,cvw:assessment}.
The most important is {\em verisimilitude}: a single
input should produce both compilable program and publishable document,
warranting the correctness of the document.
Others include flexible order of elaboration,
ability to develop program and documentation concurrently in one
place, cross-references, and indexing.
Both {\tt WEB} and {\tt noweb}
satisfy all these expectations, although in both cases automatic
indexing is available for a limited set of programming languages.


\section{Discussion}

{\tt WEB} takes the monolithic approach to literate programming---it
does everything.
{\tt noweb}'s approach is to compose
simple tools that manipulate files in the {\tt noweb} format. 
Existing Unix tools provide some of the {\tt WEB} features that
aren't found in \verb+noweb+.
Unix supplies two macro processors: the C
preprocessor and the \verb+m4+ macro processor.
\verb+xstr+ extracts string literals.
\verb+patch+ provides a form of version control similar to {\tt WEB}'s
change files.
Few of {\tt WEB}'s remaining features will be missed; for example, many compilers
evaluate constant expressions at compile time.
Experience with {\tt WEB} has suggested that prettyprinting may be
more trouble than it is worth~\cite{ramsey:literate}.

{\tt noweb} was developed on Unix and uses Unix tools like {\tt
awk} and the Bourne shell, but the only Unix feature it really needs
is the pipeline.
All components written in {\tt awk} have been duplicated in Icon; 
an Icon implementation is freely available from the University of Arizona, and
it runs on a wide variety of hardware and operating-system platforms.
{\tt noweb} can be ported to non-Unix platforms provided they have
pipelines or an emulation thereof, ANSI~C, and either {\tt awk} or Icon.
For example, 
Lee Wittenberg of Kean College ported {\tt noweb} to MS-DOS by
rewriting the shell scripts as DOS batch files.

Indexing and cross-referencing make
{\tt noweb} less simple than it could be.
Complex {\LaTeX} code is needed to compute page numbers for use in
cross-reference lists and in the index.
The ability to use page numbers justifies this complexity, especially
since the complexity can be hidden from most users.
Users do need to understand the {\LaTeX} code if they want to customize the
appearance of their {\tt noweb} documents while retaining {\tt
noweb}'s use of page numbers for cross-reference.
Most literate-programming tools
forbid customization, but not all users will accept such a restriction.
I have compromised between simplicity and customizability by adding
{\LaTeX} options for a dozen of the most commonly requested
customizations; users can choose from among these options without
understanding {\tt noweb}'s {\LaTeX} code.


Four things distinguish {\tt noweb} from previous work.
{\tt noweb} takes as simple as possible a view of literate programming
and the tools needed to implement it. 
Instead of relying on a generator or re-implementation to support
different programming languages, {\tt noweb} is independent of the
target programming language.
{\tt noweave}'s dependence on its typesetter is small and isolated,
instead of being distributed throughout a large implementation.
Users have extended {\tt noweb} without recompiling its source code.

Experimenting with {\tt noweb} is easy because the tools are simple
and they work with any language.
If the experiment is unsatisfying, it is easy to abandon, because 
\verb+notangle+'s output, unlike {\tt TANGLE}'s, is readable.
\verb+noweb+ is simpler than {\tt WEB}, and it is easier to use and
understand, but it does less.
I argue, however, that the benefit of {\tt WEB}'s extra features is
outweighed by cost of the extra complexity,
making \verb+noweb+  better for writing literate programs.

\verb+noweb+ can be obtained by 
anonymous {\tt ftp} from CTAN,
the Comprehensive {\TeX} 
Archive Network, in directory {\tt web/noweb}.  CTAN replicas appear
on 
hosts {\tt ftp.shsu.edu}, {\tt ftp.tex.ac.uk}, and {\tt ftp.uni-stuttgart.de}.

\section{Acknowledgements}
Mark Weiser's invaluable encouragement provided the impetus for me to
write this paper, which I did while visiting the Computer
Science Laboratory of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
David Hanson suggested and provided the \verb+cpif+ program.
Preston Briggs developed many of the ideas used in \verb+noweb+'s
indexing, and he contributed code used in one of the pipeline stages.
Dave Love provided much-needed {\LaTeX} expertise.
Comments from David Hanson and from the anonymous referees stimulated
me to improve the paper.
The development of {\tt noweb} was supported by a Fannie and John Hertz
Foundation Fellowship.

This paper was submitted in August, 1991.

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\bibliography{web,cs,ramsey,ml}

\clearpage
\noweboptions{shift}	% needed to make room for wordcount example

\input wc

\end{document}
