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:         Fri, 23 Feb 90 11:34:10 CET
From: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.bitnet>
Organization: Inst. f. Theor. Physik d. Univ. Heidelberg
Subject:      Re: \begin...\end interface
To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.uucp>
In-Reply-To:  Message of Thu, 22 Feb 90 12:55:27 PST from <lamport@SRC.DEC.COM>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 23

On Thu, 22 Feb 90 12:55:27 PST Leslie Lamport said:

From page 34 of the manual:
>
>   To every declaration corresponds an environment whose name is the same
>   as the declaration's name without the \.
>
>Thus, \begin{tt} ... \end{tt} is equivalent to {\tt ... }.
>There is no reason to change this--at least no reason compelling
>enough to justify changing the user's view.

I'm saying nothing against this, only against using the SAME internal
macro for both.  It is not a problem for \tt, though.

>However, I see no reason to bother with this.  If the user writes
>\enumerate ... \endenumerate, he is not using a standard LaTeX
>command and has no reason to expect mercy.  There are plenty of
>nonLaTeX commands that he can type that are a lot more destructive
>than that.

I don't agree.  First of all it's always a good idea to hide the
underlying structures---you avoid that the user is tempted to
access them.  Second, you gain the advantage that the environment
`xyz' must not automatically be the same macro as the command `\xyz'
(even if the implement the same feature, there may be reasons for not
using the same internal macro).  Finally, it is worth the effort to
make LaTeX more robust, even if there are other, far more desastrous
commands.

Have a nice weekend,

Rainer