Message-Id: <199401311407.AA12318@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 1994 13:53:30 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: form and content
Status: R

From:          David Carlisle <carlisle@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk>
%>Mike> Was this intentional, or an oversight in the way the macros were
%>Mike> defined? So the existence of the command \foo implies the
%>Mike> existence of the environment foo.
%>
%>Intentional, and `documented by example' on page 18 of the LaTeX book.
%>
%>It says:  \begin{em} \end{em} is eqivalent to {\em }
%>
%>
%>To be read as: any declaration {\foo } may also be entered as an
%>environment \begin{foo} \end{foo}
%>

I don't agree! Look at p111-12, a bit that always confused me! A clear
distinction is made between the environment center and the "declaration"
\centering. Similar for flushleft/right and \raggedright/left. Even the names
are changed.  Thus I had always assumed that Lamport had included a
definition for \endem in latex.tex, but I had never bothered to check that.
(Well, you can't check everything, can you?)

Mike

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