Message-Id: <9305031518.AA16826@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Mon, 3 May 93 17:16:54 +0200
From: Peter Dalgaard SFE <pd@KUBISM.KU.DK>
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: documentstyle option versions
Status: R


> [snip]By "subtly
> wrong results" I really meant wrong results, not just
> different-looking; but not so glaringly wrong that they would
> necessarily be noticed in a casual skimming of the output. For
> example: Omission of all \cite's in the body of the text.  Printing
> all cites as number 1 instead of different numbers.  Minus signs in
> math formulas printing as cap Gammas. Disappearance of all cap Greek
> letters in math formulas. Omission of equation numbers.  Quotations
> losing their formatting so that they are indistinguishable from the
> surrounding text. Changing of boldface variables in math formulas to
> math italic.  Elements in a picture environment that were supposed to
> be equidistant coming out non-equidistant (not by a pixel or two, from
> output device differences, but by a significant amount that renders
> the picture nonsensical). Omission of all footnotes.
[snip]

Or, for that matter: Getting all \bar's changed to overstrike. This is
exactly what happens currently if you try to mix DC fonts with AMS-LaTeX.
The cause is obvious and I can (probably) fix it locally but that gives
me exactly the problem of lack of portability. The reason for mentioning
it here is that the problem is so typical: Explicit charcodes. The code
assumes that the cmr layout is used and it isn't.

I wish I could say that it was due to poor programming practices, but
I find it difficult to see what else the poor style writer should have
done. Now, if one made the new LaTeX contain support for good programming
practice (a \assert macro springs to mind) and a Style Writers Guide
was written containing good advice and warnings then it might be possible
to eradicate the worst cases of this kind of trouble.

I'm not buying the do-away-with-proofreading concept, but it should be
possible to avoid some of the pitfalls through the establishment of
a tradition of good programming practice.

	Peter Dalgaard

(Quote above was from
>
>
> Michael Downes                              mjd@math.ams.org (Internet)
> )