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  July 1998

LATEX-L July 1998

Subject:

Re: First experience with xr under L3PL

From:

Richard Walker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:19:07 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

Frank Mittelbach writes:
 >  >  I'd like to suggest that the `check' option used in
 >  > the dtx files be changed into a package option, say `checkdef' (you
 >  > can think of a better name).
 >
 > good idea, anybody willing to do this?

Hooray - you like one of my ideas :-)  OK, unless someone else is
realy keen on getting some experience, I'll have a go.

 > . . . actually i could have also produced
 > essentially the same algorithm by not using the stack commands but
 > instead using those other sequence commands.

True enough, I just wasn't sure whether you chose to implement it
differently or whether it just turned out that way.

 >  > . . . it might well serve as a deterrent to those who
 >  > come to LaTeX3 as beginners.
 >
 > i think i disagree here. what i meant is that you do need to learn
 > some layer whether it'll be current latex internal commands (by looking
 > at the latex source or other packages) or be something like the L3PL
 > language is not much different (except for those who already mastered
 > most of the mess of the current latex)

The difference will be that it's `official' and documented.  Let's
hope the difference counts!

 >  > If you are happy to release out-of-date and inconsistent documentation
 >  > for incomplete packages then in fairness to us - your guinea pigs -
 >  > _everything_ must be up for grabs.
 >
 > i already said that this was a remark concerning latex2e --- and if
 > people are willing to help updating the documentation of the .dtx
 > files for 2e we are too willing to accept such help!!! just drop us a
 > note and we provide you with the file of your choice (latest version
 > -- sometimes fixes for the next release are already in) lock it in rcs
 > and put the updated documentation with your name on back in. certainly
 > we can make these sources better and it is still worth doing even
 > though we are talking about a sort of paradigm change here.

A part of me really wants to do this.  Another part of me says `why
bother?', when, for example, my energy would be better spent adding
the functionality of \@for and \@tfor to l3seq than to documenting
ltcntrl.  I think from what you have said so far that this is your
perspective too!

 > we don't have the intention of closing doors at this stage. but at the
 > other hand we believe that there is not much gained if X suggests to
 > change the syntax slightly in this direction, then we have a long
 > discussion on whether or not this is how other people see this, then Y
 > suggest some other twist, ... and all of this gets implemented
 > straight away (by us) and changed over and over again instead of
 > providing new functionality within the framework as is and change it
 > completely on the surface later.

I accept this completely.  I agree that the onus is on me (and others)
to `prove' me (us) `right', and that any change in the syntax has to
be done by me (us).

 > i also have nothing whatsoever against the idea that somebody sits
 > down and takes apart all the packages we have put together and does
 > some global replace and produces a version more to his or her liking.
 > we can certainly put such a version on CTAN as well.

That is a very positive statement - thank you.  As I said, I don't
want to change things on a whim, but I appreciate your openness in
allowing me (and others) to put forward other ideas for
consideration.

 > but what i'm not going to do (me personally) is to do that type of
 > work just because some people think that _ are bad or the colon should
 > be a . or Modula2 type of syntax is better. that would drag on forever
 > without anything gained because there are probably as many opinions on
 > this subject as we had emails on it. if somebody wants to, please do
 > so, but don't ask us to do it for you now.

Well, I wasn't asking you to do that.  I will indeed do it myself.
I can use Emacs's regular expression search and replace as well as the
next person . . . .

 > let me also say that i *DON'T* like the language as it is on many
 > special points (not the last are the many _) but just like here on the
 > list with perhaps 4-6 people commenting on the look of it we had
 > internally also very different opinions what looks best or works
 > best. and at one point we decided to stop and just pick one to
 > actually get functionality provided.

If you have records of the internal discussions I'd like to see them
(if you don't mind).  I'm sure some of your frustrations are because
you have to repeat arguments that have already been settled.

 > you also need a higher-level interface (or set of interfaces) which
 > are also official to avoid all the situations that people because of
 > nothing being put into such a status hooked into any layer with
 > disastrous effects when something was reprogrammed (or just fixed or
 > optimized :-)

I think we all know this from experience!  The hard problem will be
deciding what is important enough to become `official'.  An
interesting comparison is with MacOS X and `Carbon'.  The plan is to
cut the Mac's programming interface from about 8000 calls down to
a core of about 2000 calls.  `Less is more', so they say.

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