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]>
Subject: Re: Modules
From: Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:27:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <13778.40005.889304.525595@isidor>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)

 > On Wed, 12 August 1998 21:49:41 +0200,
 > Martin Schroeder <[log in to unmask]> writes:
 >  > In <[log in to unmask]> Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes:
 >  > >b) will be drastic: a current LaTeX format (without any packages
 >  > >loaded) uses about 51088 words of memory before begin document; if the
 >  > >average word length in commands is 10 (which is far too low with a
 >  > >consequent implemented module concept) then this gets basically blown
 >  > >to 500000 which is twice the amount of main mem
 > [...]
 > Frank, either I misunderstand your ``word'' or you are wrong with this
 > analysis.

i guess neither. :-) the problem is that Martin cited me out of
context. I was replying to a suggestion to replace TeX's token based
mechanism, ie \foobar being internally one token in main mem and a few
bits of char mem, with a mechanism in which \foobar is 7 tokens ---
only that we were discussing \foo/bar_bas_... eg even longer streams
of tokens stored and processed each time.

my claim back then is that TeX is tailored to be a token based program
and that giving this up is undesirable for several reasons.