Message-Id: <199401281013.AA05635@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 1994 10:08:51 LCL
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@sheffield.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:      Re: patterns
Status: R

....and this...seems we need to sort out TeX first!

Mike Piff

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Date:          Fri, 28 Jan 1994 10:14:10 GMT
Reply-to:      NTS-L Distribution list <NTS-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>
From:          Peter Breitenlohner <PEB@DMUMPIWH.EARN>
Organization:  Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik, Muenchen
Subject:       Re: patterns
To:            Multiple recipients of list NTS-L <NTS-L@DHDURZ1.EARN>


On Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:07:30 -0500 Laurent Siebenmann said:
>What gives? Look closely and you see a loophole big enough for
>a pregnant donkey.  When a format is compiled with no
>patterns, then no patterns are compacted and no obstruction is
>created to the assimilation of further patterns!
>
I am very sorry but that is just NOT true, at least not for an unmodified
TeX. This fact can be verified by either looking at the code where
INITEX undumps hyphenation data or by a short test (please do that
with a TeX version that has not been modified at this point!).
Needless to say that I did perform this experiment.
Peter Breitenlohner

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of %%
%% Sheffield, UK.                    e-mail: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%