Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:23:54 CET |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hans Aberg wrote:
> Here is a possible generalization of the templates in the
> http://www.latex-project.org/talks/tug99.pdf document to classes. The
> point with the class dogma is that one has data with certain structure
> that one wants to describe, and that it helps that description (as it
> lessens programming errors, diminishes the need for repetitive low-level
> programming, etc).
Even if the template system reminds of object-oriented programming at first
glace, it is something completely different. Templates are just commands
which are parameterised; an instance provides the actual parameters for the
command. It doesn't make sense to subclass a template. You have to write a
completely new template if you want to add new parameters.
I don't think that an object-oriented approach is appropriate for LaTeX.
Objects are entities with an internal state capable of sending and
responding to messages. Thus, they are active elements. A text document
on the other hand is something static. It consists of text enriched by
meta-data describing its layout. LaTeX translates this static description
into some lowlevel format. Thus, basically LaTeX is a set of rules
determining this translation, i.e., a set of commands to perform this
translation. Therefore, IMHO a command-based system like templates is
much more appropriate in this context. Some work with the new system has
confirmed this impression.
Achim
________________________________________________________________________
_ | \_____/ |
// Achim Blumensath | \ _ \O/ \___/\ |
// [log in to unmask] |-< /_\ =o= \ /\ \|
\X/ (p^2 - m^2)\psi = 0 |_/ \_ /"\ o----|
____________________________________________________________________\___|
|
|
|