X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil] ["1687" "Fri" "17" "September" "93" "09:45:31" "EDT" "Michael Barr" "barr@TRIPLES.MATH.MCGILL.CA" nil "41" "Re: Latex-l `problem': can you fix this sometime, thanks" nil nil nil "9"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA08555; Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:04:36 +0200 Received: from vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (vm.hd-net.uni-heidelberg.de) by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA27478; Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:04:32 +0200 Message-Id: <9309171404.AA27478@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE> Received: from DHDURZ1 by vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2579; Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:03:38 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2525; Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:03:30 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2523; Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:03:28 CET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 09:45:31 EDT From: Michael Barr Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple Recipients of Subject: Re: Latex-l `problem': can you fix this sometime, thanks Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1061 > 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 > If I may be permitted to add my 2 sous here, I would like to say that although I agree with RS's answer, I do regard it as a definite defect in tex (not plain, not latex, but tex) that a tex primitive depend on another tex primitive when the latter can be redefined. If \vfill were a \def'ined term, then you could \let\Par\par and then redefine \vfill using \Par. But the dependency is built in and cannot be overcome so easily. Michael Barr