Re: Should chars over 128 be active?

Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4CEA0F9C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:11 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4CEA0F9C" 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.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Should chars over 128 be active? Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 14:59:33 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "bbeeton" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 445 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4CEA0F9C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable don hosek says ... Named commands ... must (in general) be composed of letters although as long as the sequence of letters up to the first non-letter is unique, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. not wishing to start a flame war, nonetheless, ... don, i refer to the texbook. first, p. 275: --> and then p. 47: \ddanger If \TeX{} sees an escape character (category 0) in any state, it scans the entire control sequence name as follows. (a) If there are no more characters in the line, the name is empty (like \verb|\csname\endcsname|). Otherwise (b) if the next character is not of category 11 (letter), the name consists of that single symbol. Otherwise (c) the name consists of all letters beginning with the current one and ending just before the first nonletter, or at the end of the line. This name becomes a control sequence token. ... nothing "in general" about it! i do hope you're not presenting this concept to students in the way you stated it. it's much too easy to remember the "in general" and forget that the sequence must be "unique". a dangerous paraphrase. well, you did, in a subsequent message, say you weren't so good at precise technical definitions. failure to be able to define = "literature" doesn't mean that one shouldn't be precise in quoting from it. on another matter, you imply that there are several implementations of tex 3.0 that are "seriously broken". i'm not asking for details. however, one of my dreams is for a tug committee to certify that tex implementations are tripworthy (only a part of what is needed to inform a prospective user) and that they have certain other characteristics under particular circumstances (to be specified). should the next tug board actually charter such a committee, i hope you will be willing to provide your information to them to be checked out. -- bb ------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4CEA0F9C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Should chars over 128 be active?

don hosek says

    ... Named commands ... must (in = general) be composed of letters
    although as long as the sequence = of letters up to the first
    non-letter is unique, this is not = a hard-and-fast rule.

not wishing to start a flame war, nonetheless, = ...
don, i refer to the texbook. first, p. = 275:

and then p. 47:

    \ddanger If \TeX{} sees an escape = character (category 0) in any
    state, it scans the entire control = sequence name as follows.
    (a) If there are no more = characters in the line, the name is
    empty (like = \verb|\csname\endcsname|). Otherwise (b) if the
    next character is not of category = 11 (letter), the name consists
    of that single symbol. = Otherwise (c) the name consists of all
    letters beginning with the current = one and ending just before
    the first nonletter, or at the end = of the line. This name
    becomes a control sequence = token. ...

nothing "in general" about it! i do = hope you're not presenting this
concept to students in the way you stated it. = it's much too easy to
remember the "in general" and forget that = the sequence must be "unique".
a dangerous paraphrase.

well, you did, in a subsequent message, say you = weren't so good at
precise technical definitions. failure to be = able to define "literature"
doesn't mean that one shouldn't be precise in quoting = from it.

on another matter, you imply that there are several = implementations
of tex 3.0 that are "seriously = broken". i'm not asking for details.
however, one of my dreams is for a tug committee to = certify that
tex implementations are tripworthy (only a part of = what is needed
to inform a prospective user) and that they have = certain other
characteristics under particular circumstances (to be = specified).
should the next tug board actually charter such a = committee, i hope
you will be willing to provide your information to = them to be checked
out.
= = = = = -- bb
-------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4CEA0F9C--