Hans Aberg wrote: > Here is a possible generalization of the templates in the > http://www.latex-project.org/talks/tug99.pdf document to classes. The > point with the class dogma is that one has data with certain structure > that one wants to describe, and that it helps that description (as it > lessens programming errors, diminishes the need for repetitive low-level > programming, etc). Even if the template system reminds of object-oriented programming at first glace, it is something completely different. Templates are just commands which are parameterised; an instance provides the actual parameters for the command. It doesn't make sense to subclass a template. You have to write a completely new template if you want to add new parameters. 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. A text document on the other hand is something static. It consists of text enriched by meta-data describing its layout. LaTeX translates this static description into some lowlevel format. Thus, basically LaTeX is a set of rules determining this translation, i.e., a set of commands to perform this translation. Therefore, IMHO a command-based system like templates is much more appropriate in this context. Some work with the new system has confirmed this impression. Achim ________________________________________________________________________ _ | \_____/ | // Achim Blumensath | \ _ \O/ \___/\ | // [log in to unmask] |-< /_\ =o= \ /\ \| \X/ (p^2 - m^2)\psi = 0 |_/ \_ /"\ o----| ____________________________________________________________________\___|