LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Donald Arseneau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:44:21 -0700
text/plain (25 lines)
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Morten_H=F8gholm?= <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:40:04 +0200, Javier Bezos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > in LaTeX of \parshape is in \list and I wonder why
> > it was preferred to other possibilities like \hangindent
> > or \leftskip/rightskip. Any ideas?

Like much of original LaTeX, it is sloppy coding and profligate
waste of TeX features.  I think lists could have been defined
better using \leftskip/\rightskip, and that would allow safe
reprocessing of page contents using \lastbox.  The difference
is that equation environments would need to set a \displayindent
explicitly, instead of TeX setting it for them.

> Using
>    \leftskip\@totalleftmargin
> works fine until you start issuing \raggedright etc.

\raggedright already maintains \@rightskip for the benefit of the
current list implementation.  It would be no more complex (just slightly
different) for a different list.  The current definition is extremely
obscure, ugly, and fragile in its redefinition of \par, needed to
reset \parshape settings every paragraph.

Donald Arseneau                          [log in to unmask]