LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 21:35:18 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Michiel Helvensteijn <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (35 lines)
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Michiel Helvensteijn
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I wanted to give my kudos to Bruno for the unravel package. It might
> be the most massively useful single package for TeX programmers I've
> seen.

This being true, I am suddenly forced to wonder if it wouldn't have
saved a great deal of work to implement it in the TeXLive / MiKTeX
source-code directly (with the help of their respective developers).
To be frank, doing that rather than continuing with this package would
*still* save a great deal of work, even if you have to do it for
TeXLive and MiKTeX separately.

I realize it can't be fun to hear this after the effort you've gone
through. But there are obvious advantages:

(1) No need to simulate the TeX parser; it's already there for you.
All you have to do is install some hooks (if they're not already

(2) So also: no need to worry about discrepancy between your parser and theirs.

(3) You have full access to the state of the TeX parser at all times
(e.g. content of the mouth/stomach, the list of defined command
sequences, catcodes, mathcodes, etc.), without being subject to its
limitations yourself.

(4) It would run... thousands of times faster.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.