Message-Id: <9311092240.AA12078@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 93 22:36:57 GMT
From: Paul Taylor <pt@DOC.IMPERIAL.AC.UK>
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:      search paths
Status: R


I am fully aware that there are ways in which TEXINPUTS can be set from
the outside, and as someone who has done battle with his makefiles,
I am also aware that Karl Berry's web2c has all sorts of ways of searching
for things. Indeed BSTINPUTS and MakeTeX{TeX,TFM} were my suggestions.

However none of this has anything to do with LaTeX, because by the time
LaTeX (even lplain.tex) gets control, the search paths are fixed.

What I had in mind was that \documentstyle and friends should search
(using the existing techniques of \read and \ifeof) for filenames with
suffices tex, sty, cls, and so on, in an order which can be specified
(in a file read by initex) as something appropriate.  When I said suffices
I meant directories, but as this is operating system dependent I withdraw
that suggestion.

WHat about Frank's referendum?  I am inclined to spoil my paper, since
(as is usually the case when our rulers :-) disdain to ask our opinions)
it misses the point. However I now think NF should go. I never understood
what "[no]margid" stood for; I thought it had something to do with
margins until I read the code.

Paul

PS There is another objection to NF.  In a completely different forum,
it was suggested that a certain concept should not be called KZ for
reasons of German sensibilities.  In Britain (and I guess probably some
other countries in translation) NF stands for National Front, a right
wing party with (to say the least) racist policies.