Message-Id: <9302082244.AA02418@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  <m0nLfdX-0004SeC@ncsc5.att.com> from "Frank Mittelbach" at Feb 8,
              93 09:42:33 pm
Date:         Mon, 8 Feb 93 23:44:12 CET
From: dcl@NCSC5.ATT.COM
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Subject:      Re: Makeindex reimplementation
Status: R


Frank Mittelbach said:
> From att!vm.gmd.de!DHDURZ1.BITNET!LATEX-L Mon Feb  8 14:03:29 1993
> Return-Path: <att!vm.gmd.de!DHDURZ1.BITNET!LATEX-L>
> From:         Frank Mittelbach <MITTELBACH@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
> Subject:      Re: Makeindex reimplementation
>
>
> I do agree with Phil; my understanding of this task was not to port it
> to C-WEB but rather to integrate it into the standard web files that
> make up a good TeX system. I don't believe that anything else makes
> much sense. There is a big advantage of having all TeX programs
> written in the same language because this allows to easier maintence
> of change files because most of them have to deal with similar
> problems. If C-WEB would be used there would be no advantage at all
> except perhaps in making the code more transparent because of a better
> documentation. But on most systems one would need to maintain just
> another WEB system.
>
> However, if it would be rewritten in standard WEB (ie in PASCAL) then
> one can make use of the WEB to object system that has to be maintained
> anyway on that particular system, eg TANGLE and Pascal, or web2c and
> cc, or whatever.

I agree that WEB would be preferable to CWEB, given that TeX itself is
written in WEB.  Part of my hesitation in volunteering for that task
was based on the fact that I don't currently have access to a Pascal
compiler.  As the idea of trying to debug a program written in WEB,
processed by web2c and then compiled by cc isn't very palatable, I
made the offer to recode it into CWEB instead.   While that offer may
have been best for me, it didn't really help the overall LaTeX3 effort.

With that in mind, and based on input I've received so far (thanks!),
my current plan of attack is this:

1.  Contact Joachim concerning his current thoughts on the state
    of MakeIndex, and which version he feels would make the best
    baseline for a port.  While I've heard mention of V3.0.8, I
    get the distinct impression that he doesn't feel it's ready
    for public consumption.  Given the quality of the work he's
    put into the currently released MakeIndex (2.11), I'll certainly
    defer to his wishes.

    I'm also extremely interested in his modifications for sorting
    & multilingual support.

2.  Given that information, contact Oren concerning the areas of
    commonality between BiBTeX and MakeIndex (especially with respect
    to sharing common algorithms, or better yet, common code).

3.  Collect and summarize information gathered from this group, as
    well as misc. other sources (TUG, usenet, etc.), concerning the
    rewrite.

4.  Submit a proposal for the implementation to any concerned
    individuals, including this list.

5.  Once the proposal has reached some form of consensus, and assuming
    I can find an inexpensive Pascal compiler, I'll begin the actual
    port to WEB (not CWEB).

> But before there is any rewrite, one clearly has to ask first what
> kind of syntax is necessary and what features need to be supported.
> This is very much related to the volunteer task about `research on
> indexing commands' which is unfortunately so far without any interest.

When I first read the task list, I didn't quite understand how these
two items could be separated.  So, if  everybody agrees, I'd suggest
we combine these two tasks before going forward.  I'm still willing
to serve as coordinator for the combined task, though any and all help
would be greatly appreciated.


Comments anyone?

 - Dave

--
"Forgive your enemies....but never forget their names."

 - JFK