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  June 1998

LATEX-L June 1998

Subject:

Re: L3PL

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 14 Jun 1998 15:12:24 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (121 lines)

Javier Bezos writes:
 > [This message was originally posted two weeks ago, but I have not
 > received it yet. Apologies if someone is receiving it for the second
 > time.]

i don't think it ever made it to the list before

 > In addition, there is a potential danger. If LaTeX is so dramatically
 > rewritten, *will* existing packages work? The programming experience

i would say *if* such a dramatical rewrite is done in full then: *no*
existing packages will no longer work. of course you could make them
work all in parallel by supporting all kind of old syntax as well as
internal new syntax but that in my eyes would be a horrible nightmare.

on the other hand, *assume* for the moment that there would be a
full kernel not just a number of packages as we put out and a kernel
that is much more consistent in naming conventions and much more
orthogonal in functionality as what we have now.

also assume that enough people (that understand about TeX programming)
find the kernel being a good toolkit and are interested to use it

now how many packages are on CTAN that are functional with the current
latex and how many man/hours do you need to convert them once for all?

many i guess but perhaps not that many to make it impossible in a
short time frame assuming there are enough people finding it worth
while.

many ifs, true, but if you don't make a clean cut and instead built
forever on the fragile base and all it different coding layers that
LaTeX currently exist of then you will never get much further as we
got now: with packages don't working with each other and incompatible
coding for the same functionality and, what i think is important no
structure whatsoever that makes the coding at least halfway
understandable.

 > For many years the LaTeX Team has been encouraging LaTeX-like syntax in
 > packages; now, the proposed syntax is quite different from anything known.
 > I've found most of tools very useful, but I think their command names are
 > a bit clumsy. Why not a combination of the old and the new, say:
 >
 >   \newcommand{\name}[cn]{definition}
 >
 > or similar?

the main point of what we suggest (at least conceptual even if not
exactly the way as presented) is dividing up the coding layers; there
is a document level coding layer which consists of applying tags and
allowing for alias like functions (which \newcommand sort of
provides), there is supposed to be a design layer which allows to
describe layout by declarations and there is a low-level coding layer
which is supposed to be used for providing the tags and layout
functions which would be something like the proposed L3PL. the
importance here is consistency, eg \name:cn tells me how \name:cn
handles its arguments in contrast to \name:oo. in other words it
provides a scheme for defining \name:nn and all its argument handling
variants once for all. this doesn't belong to the document level as
there one should not be concerned about expanding arguments. and
without the naming convention (perhaps not exactly the one used but
something similar in sprit) it wouldn't be worth on the programming
level either. right now many packages and the kernel do define such
commands and some of their variants but they do it ad hoc and you
don't know it looking at the code.

 > gained
 > over the past years could be lost in part (and the packages themselves)
 > and LaTeX3 functionality could be lesser than LaTeX2e one, at least for
 > a transition period. How long will be this period?  While
 > uncompatibility is acceptable to some extent, perhaps l3 is *too*
 > innovatory. (Remember Jobs has partially rejected Rhapsody because of a
 > similar reason.)

maybe it is, who knows? which is one of the reasons why we have put it
out for discussion.

and this by the way is also one of the reasons why we haven't put it
out earlier; because we have never been sure ourselves (and aren't
now) if it is something that can work or will work (even though it
worked for ourselves for proto-typing of many ideas)

Richard Walker said in some email earlier that he thought it bad that
such ideas have been around for a long time in our heads without
putting them up to the public and that we are not making friends this
way. sorry for that, but i wonder what he would have said if we had
made similar (probably even worse as far as consistency is concerned)
ideas public at the same time as 2e was launched to get the latex
world back into some usable state?

it might have killed LaTeX or at least 2e (just like the dc/ec fonts
nearly killed it) because probably nobody would have believed that
there are two things: a stable production system to go for and in
parallel also thinking innovative (and perhaps even too innovative)
ideas at the same time

i think that we can now think about such ideas with some detachment
without fearing the worst for the stable system we have now. And with
Omega and etex and perhaps some combination of it one day available to
the community at large we have to think along those lines anyway, eg
using functionality of either such system in the kernel would mean a
large shift and a big reencoding and not using them would mean that we
stay limited forever even if the tools are around at some point.

so to summarize: this PL is showing concepts which we think being
worth looking at and thinking about it. actually applying them and how
is something that remains to be seen hopefully after people have done
a little more with it than just glancing over its documentation.

my intention at least is to provide a language interface concept coded
in this language sometime this year to show how to make real stuff
using the principles behind it. perhaps others get interested enough
to explore its potential as well a bit.

the naming convention is something that is unfamiliar the first time
you use it but our experience is that it is something you don't think
of being clumsy after a short period. definitely less clumsy as the
coding i had to use in the kernel for things like NFSS to make it
happen and which are awfully hard to understand afterwards.

frank

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