Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9B18DF94@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:22 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9B18DF94" 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 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: {1} RE: {1} text macro Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 19:22:46 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9B18DF94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> However, Dominik's point is that the name is bad. This is an = argument >>> to consider. The command is in havy use by people that have looked >>> into ams-latex. it is common for people with background in amstex. = I >>> thought it a much better and natural choice then \mbox. On the other >>> hand one could also give this functionality to \mbox with the = problem >>> that this may just have much worse effects on older documents. >>> Okay, any comments? Yes; I think Dominic is quite right --- the name `\text' \stress {is} = bad, simply because it's \stress {exactly} the sort of command that ought (a) either to be quasi-intrinsic, but with more obvious semantics [i.e. it introduces in any/all contexts], or (b) be available to users to define [since it has an inherent meaning which many users will wish to implement]. To usurp it for a particularly restricted context seems singularly inappropriate to me. ** Phil. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9B18DF94 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} RE: {1} text macro

>>> However, Dominik's point is that the name = is bad. This is an argument
>>> to consider.  The command is in = havy use by people that have looked
>>> into ams-latex. it is common for people = with background in amstex.  I
>>> thought it a much better and natural = choice then \mbox. On the other
>>> hand one could also give this = functionality to \mbox with the problem
>>> that this may just have much worse = effects on older documents.

>>> Okay, any comments?

Yes; I think Dominic is quite right --- the name = `\text' \stress {is} bad,
simply because it's \stress {exactly} the sort of = command that ought (a)
either to be quasi-intrinsic, but with more obvious = semantics [i.e. it
introduces <text> in any/all contexts], or (b) = be available to users to
define [since it has an inherent meaning which many = users will wish to
implement].  To usurp it for a particularly = restricted context seems
singularly inappropriate to me.  ** Phil.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9B18DF94--