Hans Aberg writes:
> Javier Bezos wrote:
> > Renaming commands
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Suppose someone is determined to study the internal latex code with the
> > new naming scheme. He take the TeXbook and... surprise! The latex code is
> > absolutely unintelligible.
> Richard Walker wrote:
> >This was my reaction too. And the new names are often not transparent
> >renamings of the original - as you point out, some are subtly
> >different. You need to know not only the new names but you need to
> >keep the implementations in mind too.
> I think the contrary: This is a very good, bold move, that is, if it can
> be made to work. One then becomes independent of that old PlainTeX once for
> all, and is free to build up an entirely new consistent logical structure.
don't think i always disagree :-)
i also think that neither Javier's nor Richard's fears are
warranted. it is true that you would have a hard time to understand
the code starting just from the TeX book. but this is true for any
format that tries to do a bit more than plain TeX --- try
understanding a few lines of lollipop or ConTeXT taken out of the
middle (or even LaTeX2e without documentation and context)
no i think that this you will have this problem always and the
solution is that you provide a replacement book for the TeX book.
> This will perhaps prepare for a new version of TeX, which can take care of
> the new LaTeX3 structures efficiently.
well yes and no. as long as you stay at least essentially with the
token based interpreter then some things will not work. but yes this
is something that can be hoped for.