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:

L3PL

From:

Richard Walker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 25 May 1998 21:37:46 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

Some initial comments on The LaTeX3 Programming Language (L3PL for
short).

Well, the silence is deafening.  Someone has to be first, and it might
as well be me.  (I haven't heard anything, and hope I haven't lost any
e-mail.  If so, sorry!)

First, a short anecdote.  In the early days of the TDS (1994) it
looked like the font area was going to be supplier/typeface/type,
which I thought from my experience with web2c would be very slow (no
ls-R at that stage).  I thought this issue was settled, so I opted out
of the discussion.  It was only this year when I was working with
betas of web2c 7.2 that I came back to the TDS and discovered that the
font area had been changed to type/supplier/typeface, a much better
solution (IMHO).  I then realized that I could/should have kept
following the discussion.  So this time I'm sticking around and I'm
going to try to make a positive contribution.  But as I'm going first
(AFAIK), I'm sure I will have misunderstood some of the ideas and
motivations, so please bear with me as I stumble around and ask a few
basic questions.  Also, please forgive me if I sound a little negative
in places; I am trying to promote (provoke!) a healthy discussion.

I read: `Variations of this language have been in use by The LaTeX3
Project Team since around 1990 . . .'.  Well, this is news to me!  I
do understand that the Team wanted to get it to a certain stage of
maturity before releasing it, but they don't win any friends for
keeping the whole thing such a well-guarded secret (even if only by
default - most LaTeX users don't attend TUG meetings to hear the
latest gossip, and we haven't heard anything about it in `LaTeX News'
until the current release).

`Gut feelings'

When the beta release of 2e came out I read through the documentation
and got really excited by all of the new features that supported
writing-in-the-large, proper package encapsulation, the improved
font-selection scheme, etc. etc.  I think this excitement was part of
the reason why 2e has been so successful.  Anything that follows
(e.g. LaTeX3) has to be exciting too.  If it isn't fun, why bother?
Warm fuzzy feelings should not be underestimated.

Having read carefully through the introductory documentation for L3PL
and most of the separate packages, I feel only luke-warm.

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.).  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.

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!

The packages give tantalizing hints about the future and raise more
questions than they answer.  Surely `fake' integers can not be here to
stay?

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?

From all that I have read, LaTeX3 might well have an historical link
to the original conception and implementation of LaTeX, but it is
going to be very different.  Reading the L3PL documentation it becomes
painfully obvious (to me, anyway) that it's time to cut the cord
officially and (a) adopt a new base platform (Omega, e-TeX, whatever)
and (b) change the name to something other than LaTeX.

The fine details

I like the \<module>_<description>:<arg-spec> format.  But I do have a
few niggling doubts.  First, I have to remember the <arg-spec> each
time I use a macro.  I imagine myself writing a package and thinking
to myself as follows:

`OK, I want to do an \immediate\write16{blah}.  What's the new
version?  Ah, \iow_expanded.  Now what's its arg-spec?  Umm . . . er,
:nn, :wn?  No, wait . . . <fumble, fumble> . . . it has to be :Nn.
Huh?  How do I say \immediate\write16{blah} then?  Oh, I'm not
supposed to do that . . .'

My point is that this is an attempt to add the concept of overloaded
functions to a language that does not support it.  TeX doesn't even
have a proper concept of `type'.  Adding a suffix that indicates the
type of a macro's arguments or their expansion (or lack of) is a hack,
pure and simple.  The fact that it `works' is neither here nor there.
And AUC TeX will only help a little bit.

Second, TeX does not have a well-developed concept of encapsulation.
Even a low-level language such as C allows the definition of `static'
functions, which can not be `seen' in other compilation units.  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.

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

Fourth, a more basic objection can be expressed thus: `why should I
start writing \exp_after:NN when I have been writing \expandafter for
so many years?'.  Is it planned to make the removeoldnames feature the
default for LaTeX3?

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.

The bottom line (so far)

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.

Let the debate begin!

Richard.
--
Richard Walker                            [log in to unmask]
Department of Computer Science
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia             Fax:  +61 2 6249 0010

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