Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A8163B94@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:44 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A8163B94" 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: Re: L3 suggestion: different file extension Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 20:02:20 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 686 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A8163B94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Subj: L3 suggestion: different file extension > > This may be a bit radical, but could it be possible for LaTeX files > to have the extension .ltx instead of .tex? > > I assume this is a function of tex the program, rather than of the > LaTeX macros. But I mention it in case there is some clever way > to achieve this by macro programming (Frank, Rainer and others > have already managed several things I would have said were impossible > with TeX). This is in fact more or less a function of the program, more exactly the default is defined in the pool file. Of course, it is possible to do clever things to the input file names, as long as the LaTeX convention of surrounding the argument of \input with braces is obeyed, but if we also allow \input foo.bar then things become difficult. As a matter of fact, I intend to discourage the native \input form anyway, because having the filename available allows to maintain a stack of currently open files and as a consequence allows to produce warnings and error messages of the form ... on line 17 of file foo which I find very helpful. The advantages of having a separate extention is clear for environments where several flavors of TeX are used side by side, but there are also disadvantages. I know for example some shells for the Atari where the shell insist that a tex file has the extension `.tex'. This makes the use of files like multicol.drv nearly impossible to process without renaming. We may run into similar problems if we try to force extensions from within ltx3. What should be the correct order of processing? One solution if we encounter \input{foo} could be: - test for foo.ltx by appending .ltx - if not found test for foo.tex by appending .tex - if not found try native foo this may not work on every system. Alternatively we could first check if foo contains a `.' if so use it directly, and otherwise try foo.ltx. Suggestions? Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A8163B94 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: L3 suggestion: different file extension

> Subj: L3 suggestion: different file = extension
>
> This may be a bit radical, but could it be = possible for LaTeX files
> to have the extension .ltx instead of = .tex?
>
> I assume this is a function of tex the program, = rather than of the
> LaTeX macros.  But I mention it in case = there is some clever way
> to achieve this by macro programming (Frank, = Rainer and others
> have already managed several things I would have = said were impossible
> with TeX).

This is in fact more or less a function of the = program, more exactly
the default is defined in the pool file. Of course, = it is possible to
do clever things to the input file names, as long as = the LaTeX
convention of surrounding the argument of \input with = braces is
obeyed, but if we also allow \input foo.bar then = things become
difficult.

As a matter of fact, I intend to discourage the native = \input form
anyway, because having the filename available allows = to maintain a
stack of currently open files and as a consequence = allows to produce
warnings and error messages of the form

 ... on line 17 of file foo

which I find very helpful.

The advantages of having a separate extention is clear = for
environments where several flavors of TeX are used = side by side, but
there are also disadvantages. I know for example some = shells for the
Atari where the shell insist that a tex file has the = extension `.tex'.
This makes the use of files like multicol.drv nearly = impossible to
process without renaming. We may run into similar = problems if we try
to force extensions from within ltx3.

What should be the correct order of processing?
One solution if we encounter \input{foo} could = be:

   - test for foo.ltx by appending = .ltx
   - if not found test for foo.tex by = appending .tex
   - if not found try native foo

this may not work on every system.

Alternatively we could first check if foo contains a = `.' if so use it
directly, and otherwise try foo.ltx.

Suggestions?

Frank


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A8163B94--