Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A1C9FBCC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:34 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1C9FBCC" 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} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 12:58:26 +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: 625 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1C9FBCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> Is there anything to be said for not worrying too much about = providing >>> a compatibility module for LaTeX 2.09? It would be one less thing = to do. I would support this. There are sufficient kludges in LaTeX-2 that the = hassle of emulating them surely outweighs the advantages. Let us take = advantage of the total rewrite to \stress {get it right this time}. ** Phil. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1C9FBCC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} RE: {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0

>>> Is there anything to be said for not = worrying too much about providing
>>> a compatibility module for LaTeX = 2.09?  It would be one less thing to do.

I would support this.  There are sufficient = kludges in LaTeX-2 that the hassle
of emulating them surely outweighs the = advantages.  Let us take advantage of
the total rewrite to \stress {get it right this = time}.

        =         =         =         =         ** = Phil.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1C9FBCC--