Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9DF4E15C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:27 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9DF4E15C" 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: {?} size options Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 17:53:42 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 601 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9DF4E15C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I suppose the error message that LaTeX gives: > ! I can't find file `10pt.sty'. > does make sense, because in these cases there really is no > file called 10pt.sty. But slightly more experienced users know that > for an 11pt article style `art11.sty' what is used, etc. And confusion = sets > in again... Yes, this sort of novice error is bad and unnecessary. I thought we had = added \@namedef{ds@10pt}{\def\@ptsize{0}} to the standard styles, but looking into it we must have forgotten all about it. > But the coding change to article.sty (and other styles) is > trivial. It is given below. > > < \def\@ptsize{0} \@namedef{ds@11pt}{\def\@ptsize{1}} > < \@namedef{ds@12pt}{\def\@ptsize{2}} > --- > > \def\@ptsize{10} \@namedef{ds@11pt}{\def\@ptsize{11}} > > \@namedef{ds@12pt}{\def\@ptsize{12}} > > \@namedef{ds@10pt}{\def\@ptsize{10}} > 11c12 > < \input art1\@ptsize.sty\relax > --- > > \input art\@ptsize.sty\relax Within the current latex this seems simple but isn't because it will kill many style files around for ltx209. The nice thing about using the last digit only (and this was probably the motivation) is to allow a simple \ifcase to define variants for the three sizes 10 11 and 12. This coding technique is used quite a lot. For this reason I will not change the coding of ltx209 at this point except for perhaps adding the line above. > In fact the change could be made even smaller. I feel it is > clearer to have \@ptsize refer to the point size rather than the last > digit of the point size whose first digit is assumed to be `1'. And > what if one wanted to write style options for point size x where x < = 10pt or > (x>19) and (x<99)? But I guess this is getting onto another topic... I agree that using the real pt-size is cleaner but for the given reasons I will not change latex209 at this point. For local style variants it is easy enough to add say 9pt as an option by saying \@namedef{ds@9pt}{\def\@ptsize{09}} or something and then define art109.sty, not too clean but okay with the current coding of substyles. > Perhaps LaTeX 3 will be more liberal and general in its coding here? I hope so. I once dicussed with Rainer during some holidays a full general scheme for supporting and maintaing styles and substyles, but unfortunately the only thing we remember from these discussions is that we found the scheme general and flexibel enough to serve for ltx3 :-( So this needs to be discussed once more. Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9DF4E15C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} Re: {?} size options

> I suppose the error message that LaTeX = gives:
>    ! I can't find file = `10pt.sty'.
> does make sense, because in these cases there = really is no
> file called 10pt.sty. But slightly more = experienced users know that
> for an 11pt article style `art11.sty' what is = used, etc. And confusion sets
> in again...

Yes, this sort of novice error is bad and unnecessary. = I thought we had added
 \@namedef{ds@10pt}{\def\@ptsize{0}}
to the standard styles, but looking into it we must = have forgotten all
about it.

> But the coding change to article.sty (and other = styles) is
> trivial. It is given below.
>
> < \def\@ptsize{0} = \@namedef{ds@11pt}{\def\@ptsize{1}}
> < \@namedef{ds@12pt}{\def\@ptsize{2}}
> ---
> > \def\@ptsize{10} = \@namedef{ds@11pt}{\def\@ptsize{11}}
> > \@namedef{ds@12pt}{\def\@ptsize{12}}
> > \@namedef{ds@10pt}{\def\@ptsize{10}}
> 11c12
> < \input art1\@ptsize.sty\relax
> ---
> > \input art\@ptsize.sty\relax

Within the current latex this seems simple but isn't = because it will
kill many style files around for ltx209. The nice = thing about using
the last digit only (and this was probably the = motivation) is to allow
a simple \ifcase to define variants for the three = sizes 10 11 and 12.
This coding technique is used quite a lot. For this = reason I will not
change the coding of ltx209 at this point except for = perhaps adding
the line above.


> In fact the change could be made even smaller. I = feel it is
> clearer to have \@ptsize refer to the point size = rather than the last
> digit of the point size whose first digit is = assumed to be `1'. And
> what if one wanted to write style options for = point size x where x < 10pt or
> (x>19) and (x<99)?  But I guess this = is getting onto another topic...

I agree that using the real pt-size is cleaner but for = the given
reasons I will not change latex209 at this point. For = local style
variants it is easy enough to add say 9pt as an = option by saying

\@namedef{ds@9pt}{\def\@ptsize{09}} or = something

and then define art109.sty, not too clean but okay = with the current
coding of substyles.

> Perhaps LaTeX 3 will be more liberal and general = in its coding here?

I hope so. I once dicussed with Rainer during some = holidays a full
general scheme for supporting and maintaing styles = and substyles, but
unfortunately the only thing we remember from these = discussions is
that we found the scheme general and flexibel enough = to serve for ltx3
:-( So this needs to be discussed once more.

Frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9DF4E15C--