Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.405C4294@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:50 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.405C4294" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-to: LATEX-L@DHDURZ1, schoepf@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de x-cc: mjd@math.ams.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Punctuation after section heads Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 10:53:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 316 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.405C4294 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael brought up the issue of section headings where a period should be added to the end only if there is not already a punctuation mark at the end of the given section head. To which I offer a couple thoughts in order of increasing attractiveness: (1) pull items off the horizontal list and decompose them to see if there's a punctuation mark at the end (2) just before reading the argument containing the section title, make !, ? and . active and have them set a flag in addition to printing the appropriate mark. If that flag is true, don't add a period onto the end yourself. (3) take a look at the spacefactor. If it is 3000, we've just had end-of-sentence punctuation. It's not too difficult to justify the occasional \@ which would be necessary under these circumstances. -dh [Rainer, if this didn't get through to the list, forward it there for = me] ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.405C4294 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Punctuation after section heads

Michael brought up the issue of section headings where = a period
should be added to the end only if there is not = already a
punctuation mark at the end of the given section = head. To which I
offer a couple thoughts in order of increasing = attractiveness:

 (1) pull items off the horizontal list and = decompose them to see
 if there's a punctuation mark at the end

 (2) just before reading the argument containing = the section
 title, make !, ? and . active and have them set = a flag in
 addition to printing the appropriate mark. If = that flag is true,
 don't add a period onto the end = yourself.

 (3) take a look at the spacefactor. If it is = 3000, we've just
 had end-of-sentence punctuation. It's not too = difficult to
 justify the occasional \@ which would be = necessary under these
 circumstances.

-dh

[Rainer, if this didn't get through to the list, = forward it there for me]

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.405C4294--