LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 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) ```Bernd  > 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. frank ```