Message-Id: <9309171052.AA26980@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  <9309171026.AA26898@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE>
Date:         Fri, 17 Sep 93 12:37:54 +0200
From: Rainer Schoepf <schoepf@SC>
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: Latex-l `problem': can you fix this sometime, thanks
Status: R


Paul Taylor wrote in response to a message from me:

 > Rainer says, in response to the \par-redefinition bug:
 > > it doesn't prevent people from using these primitive commands.
 > > If the box [had] been produced by \makebox or \parbox, there
 > > would have been no infinite loop. (the other possibility would be to
 > > insert \@parboxrestore at the beginning of the box construction.)
 >
 > I'm sorry Rainer, but (with the greatest respect) I don't like your answer
 > at all. Of course in a *document* written in LaTeX one should use LaTeX's
 > idiom, but the problem (whatever it is) might arise in a macro package.

Exactly.

 > What you are saying is that macros may only be used with LaTeX if they
 > conform exactly to you standards and (which is the point) they rely on LaTeX.

No, I was saying that *documents* have to rely on LaTeX only. Sorry
for not being clear enough. If a macro in a macro package conflicts
with the inner workings of LaTeX, then

(1) it needs to be changed to work with LaTeX, or
(2) it exhibits a problem with LaTeX itself, or
(3) both of the above.

My point is that failure to cope with LaTeX's redefinition of \par is
of type (1).

Rainer Sch"opf