LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  May 1998

LATEX-L May 1998

Subject:

Re: L3PL

From:

David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 26 May 1998 11:03:43 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (151 lines)

> I feel only luke-warm.
Well, that's good! It could have been that you felt positively
hostile...

> Some features are long overdue:  the naming system (if only it were
> more consistently applied) and the different types of arguments (n, o,
> x, etc.).

If you spot any particular inconsitencies we'd be interested. The
details of the naming scheme change from time to time so inconsistencies
may relate to older conventions that we ought to update, or it may be
that you are viewing some concept in a different way.

> But `fake' integers?  I like hacking TeX too, but I realize
> its limitations.  There seems to have been a considerable amount of
> effort put into overcoming limitations of TeX which are better
> overcome by changing TeX - as has already been done.  If I need more
> counters I will use Omega.

The fake integer implementations predate etex and omega. Probably it is
correct to say that a real L3 implementation would use an extended tex's
features for that, but perhaps this implementation may still be useful to
provide support for a standard tex. Also (and more to the point here) it
gives an example of a relatively simple datatype implemented within L3
as opposed to being a primitive tex register. As you will have noticed
the distribution is mainly intended as a set of `small examples'. The
examples provided are mainly chosen to be small enough to run just with
the provided code, rather than being chosen as being particularly the
most important or useful topics.


> I'm not normally the paranoid type (although I like watching The X
> Files as much as the next person . . .) but features such as
> removeoldnames are positively subversive!

Well.. Having that feature on a latex2e package (which then disables
almost all of the underlying system) is clearly rather strange, and only
there as a topic of conversation, not really to be used.
However if one considers making a format from scratch using these kinds
of conventions, then it does make sense to at least consider freeing up
the tex primitive names. It is not clear whether it is a good idea or
not, but it does have several advantages. The main point of the
[removeoldnames] option is to provoke discussion of that.

> The packages give tantalizing hints about the future and raise more
> questions than they answer.

Ah. They are working just as intended!

>  Surely `fake' integers can not be here to stay?

See comments above.

> On the one hand it looks like the Team want to drop TeX, but at the
> same time it looks as though they are trying to hold on tightly.  I
> would appreciate a little more clarity on this issue.  Clearly at this
> stage we are not all going to agree on whether we go with Omega or
> e-TeX, or a merger of the two projects (ideal), but what about
> dropping TeX per se?

This is of course a big issue. One that wasn't really so pressing when
the l3 project started. omega/etex/pdftex/... and how they relate to the
standard tex distributions is something that will clearly have an effect
on how latex develops, but I don't think it is clear at this stage
how things will turn out.

Generalising slightly, it is etex rather than omega or pdftex that has
the most bearing on the kind of low level programming issues addressed
by this distribution, as omega's otp and language support is really
acting at a different level, as is the variant pdf backend in pdftex.
However etex is also concerned with improving the basic programming
aspects and so does (or rather should) affect the design at various
points (eg fake counters, although in that case omega also provides
the functionality). However if you start to consider a full L3
environment not just this low level programming language, then
all the tex extensions will have an influence.

> and (a) adopt a new base platform (Omega, e-TeX, whatever)
> and (b) change the name to something other than LaTeX.

Both are topics that are worth discussing.....

> In TeX, all macros must be unique across all input files for a job, to
> avoid unintended conflicts.> To be true to L3PL, this means using the
> <module> component on practically everything.  While I do not object
> to this in principle, it is yet another burden for package writers.

Some package writers (me, for instance) already use some kind of module
system to try to ensure uniqueness of internal names. eg all longtable
internal command names begin \LT@... all tabularx ones begin \TX@...
So I don't really see this as an extra burden, more of an aid in having
a documented mechanism for this. Having the naming scheme being based on
some kind of abstract `module' rather than package based, should help
different packages share code.

> Third, it isn't possible to abstract away from TeX completely.  The
> fact that there are so many `TeXhackers notes' hints at this, as well
> as `w' in arg-specs.  I suspect that using many of the new macros
> properly requires an understanding of what's happening at the TeX
> level.

Hopefully it will be possible to build up the core l3 functionality to
the point that it is possible to program using `l3 primitives'
without having to look up the definition of each of those in terms of
tex primitives. That probably is not the case with the current suite of
functions and the current level of documentation.

> (And what are error messages going to look like?)

A good question. One possibilty is to have long helpful error messages
loaded `on demand' from external files.

> Fifth, an even more basic objection is `so what?'.  It isn't clear
> that using L3PL will yield a significant payoff.  Is it really worth
> the enormous effort of rewriting LaTeX in L3PL when (a) it already
> works, and (b) the underlying system is still TeX?  The maxim `if it
> ain't broke, don't fix it' surely applies here.

Another good question. If the outcome is to produce a rewrite of 2e but
using a new internal syntax then I agree it isn't much of a payoff.
However one may want to extend the functionality of latex in places
where it does not ``already work'' not least you may want to take
advantage of extra functionality coming from omega or etex, and also one
of the original motivations, producing a system that makes it easier to
implement design specifications. Although it is not _really_ hard to
write a latex class file, there are still relatively few good ones
around, that implement layouts drastically different to the standard
classes. Part of the problem is that it is too much like programming,
rather than being a more declarative interface closer to a design spec.
While latex2 does `work' it is a rather monolithic beast that is rather
hard to change fundamentally without breaking a lot of existing code.
If you are going to break stuff in order to add functionality, you may
as well take a step back and try to `do it right' (or at least
better). Which is really the point of these packages.

> I need more convincing.  Let the Team show us why the L3PL is so
> great, by releasing some of their prototype re-implementations of some
> of the functionality of LaTeX.

It may be that discussions show changes need to be made to all parts of
this proposed interface. Therefore we don't really want to code up
a really functioning `latex-lookalike' at this stage, while we are still
in a stage where we are prepared to go right back to the drawing board
and redo everything. Probably some larger programming examples will get
released  reasonably soon though, depending on time available.

> Let the debate begin!

Hope so.

David

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager