For use of the LaTeX discussion group. The purpose of this list is to discuss the development of the successor to LaTeX version 2e. Please direct general questions about version 2.09 and 2e to other lists. It is, however, perfectly allowed to point out deficiencies which should be improved in the next version. Note: ----- If mail to a list member is rejected three times, the corresponding mail address is deleted without further notice.
For required/graphics, the driver dvips.def is not anymore generated by graphics-drivers.ins: it has to be get from contrib/graphics-def. (Not a problem for me, I know where to find it; but it could be mentioned in the doc.)
On 17/10/2020 18:16, LARONDE Thierry wrote: > Hello, > > FWIW, one can not dump LaTeX on a virgin system (say D. E. Knuth > engines and fonts) if the following 4 tfm files are missing: > > line10.tfm > linew10.tfm > lcircle10.tfm > lcirclew10.tfm
True but that's always been the case, since at least latex 2.09 in the 1980s. They are latex picture mode fonts developed alongside the original latex macros.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 11:22:22PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote: >
[More ...] > > On a side note (since core babel is required): could you tell the babel > > developers > > Javier is on this list I think , so you contacted him already:-) > > > to correct babel.ins in order to not provoke an unnecessary > > overwrite check by docstrip, because "babel.log" is also used as the > > output name of a file created as a side effect. Namely, in: > > > > % Dummy, it just read "modules" to be used
I'm the developer of the kerTeX TeX and al. distribution.
kerTeX has, of course TeX and e-TeX, but not other engines.
The first "engine" modification of LaTeX, a few months ago, was to request the e-TeX extensions and drop vanilla TeX. OK, done.
Now the last modification requires extensions not present in e-TeX.
Until now I was able to provide the kerTeX users with a LaTeX package (I'm not myself a LaTeX user). I will not be able to follow if this stays the same way.
> The first "engine" modification of LaTeX, a few months ago, was to > request the e-TeX extensions and drop vanilla TeX. OK, done. The original announcement about e-TeX was back over 15 years ago :) The hyphenation patterns actually stepped things on well before the LaTeX kernel. Practically, therefore, it has been necessary for a number of years 'in the wild'.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 06:44:43PM +0100, Joseph Wright wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > >The first "engine" modification of LaTeX, a few months ago, was to > request the e-TeX extensions and drop vanilla TeX. OK, done. > The original announcement about e-TeX was back over 15 years ago :) The > hyphenation patterns actually stepped things on well before the LaTeX > kernel. Practically, therefore, it has been necessary for a number of years > 'in the wild'. > > >1) Is LaTeX3 aimed to be a "TeX" free engine, that is will not run
As for documentation, the pdftex manual, at least, describes them all in its usual terse way. Not sure about doc for the other engines. If the pdftex doc needs improving, let me know.
On 2020-10-13 at 15:01:51 -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> rather than any technical restriction: pdfTeX is GPL. > > FWIW, I suspect Thanh would not have a problem with allowing use of > those primitive implementations under CC0 or any other license terms.
AFAIK it's under GPL because it contains libraries from xpdf and maybe a few others which were already under GPL.
> LaTeXers - personally, I think it would be nice if the "primitive > requirements" became a permanent part of the LaTeX > documentation. (Apologies if they already there.) Maybe?
any suggestion where that should be? I consider ltnews actually not a bad place especially as there is also
Am 13.10.20 um 23:27 schrieb Reinhard Kotucha: > > FWIW, I suspect Thanh would not have a problem with allowing use of > > those primitive implementations under CC0 or any other license terms. > > AFAIK it's under GPL because it contains libraries from xpdf and maybe > a few others which were already under GPL.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 03:01:51PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote: > initial documentations/articles that list the primitives > needed and what they have to achieve? > > I am not sure if it is complete, but there was a list provided in the > LaTeX news of the time: > > https://www.latex-project.org/news/2020/02/02/issue31-of-latex2e-released/ > -> https://www.latex-project.org/news/latex2e-news/ltnews31.pdf > > As for documentation, the pdftex manual, at least, describes them all in > its usual terse way. Not sure about doc for the other engines. If the > pdftex doc needs improving, let me know. >
On 13/10/2020 19:09, LARONDE Thierry wrote: > Can you simply point me to the (u)pTeX .ch file and point me to the > initial documentations/articles that list the primitives > needed and what they have to achieve?
contains I think all of the utility primitives. Quite a bit of code is devoted to setting up random numbers: it's basically a self-contained block. The other parts are actually more interesting from the point of view of integrating to other things.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:21:32AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Karl > > >LaTeXers - personally, I think it would be nice if the "primitive > >requirements" became a permanent part of the LaTeX > >documentation. (Apologies if they already there.) Maybe? > > any suggestion where that should be? I consider ltnews actually not a bad > place especially as there is also > > https://www.latex-project.org/news/latex2e-news/ltnews.pdf > > which puts them all together. > > more for @Thierry ... > > It might be possible to make a distinction between primitives that are > specific
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:08:41AM +0100, Joseph Wright wrote: > On 13/10/2020 19:09, LARONDE Thierry wrote: > >Can you simply point me to the (u)pTeX .ch file and point me to the > >initial documentations/articles that list the primitives > >needed and what they have to achieve? > > https://tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Build/source/texk/web2c/eptexdir/pdfutils.ch?view=log > > contains I think all of the utility primitives. Quite a bit of code is > devoted to setting up random numbers: it's basically a self-contained block. > The other parts are actually more interesting from the point of view of > integrating to other things. >
While looking into this question https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent> I found that the formatting of \int differs slightly when using the amsmath package vs the base LaTeX with the former using a scriptstyle integral while the base uses a textstyle integral.
Am Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:47:31 -0500 schrieb Don Hosek:
> While looking into this question https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent> I found that the formatting of \int differs slightly when using the amsmath package vs the base LaTeX with the former using a scriptstyle integral while the base uses a textstyle integral.
> So the questions are: (1) what’s happening differently in amsmath > to change the appearance of the integral
Ah, of course, I didn’t think to look at \scriptfont3. It’s been a long time since I’ve looked this deep into TeX internals.
-dh
> On 2 Oct 2020, at 04:21, Ulrike Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Am Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:47:31 -0500 schrieb Don Hosek: > >> While looking into this question https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent> I found that the formatting of \int differs slightly when using the amsmath package vs the base LaTeX with the former using a scriptstyle integral while the base uses a textstyle integral. > >> So the questions are: (1) what’s happening differently in amsmath
