X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Thu, 22 Feb 90 18:21:29 CET
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.bitnet>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.bitnet>
From: "Nelson H.F. Beebe" <Beebe@SCIENCE.UTAH.EDU>
Subject:      Re: \begin...\end interface
X-To:         LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
In-Reply-To:  <D54F75F13E5F403BB7@CC.UTAH.EDU>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 19

Don Hosek objects to the proposed \begin{} ... \end{} changes.

I don't think the proposal meant that \begin{tt},
\begin{math}, etc should cease to exist; of course they must
continue to be available, and for the good reasons Don noted.
However, I've gone through the manual index, and can find no
statement on pages dealing with \end that says \begin{foo}
generates a macro \beginfoo; in my view, what it generates
is an internal matter that the user need not be concerned
with.  People who DO relay on internals, whether it be of
TeX, Metafont, compilers, O/Ses, ..., must be prepared to
modify their code when new releases appear.

Of course, the new implementation must be able to check for
correct \begin...\end nesting.

In summary, I don't feel that such a change would invalidate
the required goal of upward compatibility with LaTeX as
described in Leslie's book.
-------