Message-Id: <199401091752.AA00626@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Sun, 9 Jan 1994 17:45:21 GMT
From: Sebastian Rahtz <spqr@FTP.TEX.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      latex2e philosophy
Status: R

Some random thoughts on LaTeX2e brought on by revising some
documentation (not really bugs, so I send them to the LaTeX3 list):

a) the LaTeX 2.09 compatibility mode reverts to OT1 encoding
 regardless. I can see why, but is this wise?

b) i find that the local guide i maintain refers to `sample.tex' and
`small.tex' - are these on the team's list to get updated?

c) suppose i want to write a local article style (localart). i have
 three choices:
  1. copy all of article.cls and amend accordingly
  2. start localart.cls with \LoadPackage{article}, and follow it with
     just the changes I want
  3. write  a package
      \documentclass{article}
      \usepackage{localart}
   Which is philosophically better? With 1, its hard work maintaining
   routine stuff when bugs might get fixed in the original. With 2, I
   have to write \DeclareOption commands for all the standard class
   options, which is tedious. 3 is easiest, but looks wrong. Its *not* a
   package, its changes to article.

   The problem with 2 could be fixed if I had an command to say `pass any
   options to the article class when I load it'. OK, so I can list them
   all explicitly with \PassOptionsToClass, but I want to take advantage
   of any additions to article.cls

   Any advice?

Sebastian

PS what happended to \blacktriangle in amssymb...