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]>
From: Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:54:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (30 lines)
At 12:23 +0000 1999/12/04, Achim Blumensath wrote:
>I don't think that an object-oriented approach is appropriate for LaTeX.
>Objects are entities with an internal state capable of sending and
>responding to messages. Thus, they are active elements.

There are two separate aspects of what is called OOP  or object oriented
programming, one that the objects are dynamic (as you say), and another
that the objects constitute localized namespaces. OOP, which is
(originally) just an empirical notion does not require that the two aspects
be valid simultaneously.

I think I pointed that the dynamic aspect does not appear to make sense in
TeX. Therefore I concentrated on the static, namespace, aspect, which just
as templates just requires macro expansions.

But is not so easy to reject the idea that also the dynamic aspect of OOP
might have something corresponding in TeX -- the LaTeX templates already
have a notion of computing immediately or later. And selecting commands
based on type of an object is surely possible in the object model I

Anyway, this is a question of transport of ideas, and not a transport of
logical computer structures. Whatever happens in LaTeX will be on the terms
of LaTeX  and what is possible to do within the TeX program.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
                  * Home Page: <>
                  * AMS member listing: <>