X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2052" "Fri" " 4" "February" "1994" "18:24:32" "GMT" "Charles Wells" "cfw2@po.cwru.edu" "<199402041826.AA22579@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "47" "Re: Additional features" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994020418:24:32" "Additional features" nil nil]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA02529; Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:28:17 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA01561; Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:26:31 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA22579 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Fri, 4 Feb 1994 19:26:28 +0100 Message-Id: <199402041826.AA22579@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de> Received: from TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE by tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8469; Fri, 04 Feb 94 19:26:22 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin MAILER@DHDURZ1) by TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8468; Fri, 4 Feb 1994 19:26:23 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin LISTSERV@DHDURZ1) by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3818; Fri, 4 Feb 1994 19:25:46 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: David_Rhead@VME.CCC.NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:10:29 GMT Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:24:32 GMT From: Charles Wells Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Additional features Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1440 > Getting back to LaTeX3 ... > The question of > If it is a choice between "getting things right" or "backwards > compatibility", does one insist on "backwards compability"? > has been asked before, and I think the consensus was > No. Get it right. One of the most important amenities that Latex3 can have is lots of hooks into the internal code. Example: Michael Barr and I produced our text "Category Theory for Computing Science" using LaTeX. We designed some macros to allow us to write things like \exer Prove Fermat's Last Theorem \answer Somebody else already has. so that \exer acted like an \item to print the exercise with a number, and with \answer acting like \index to put the answer in a separate file. We wanted the answer file to contain headers such as "Answers to Chapter 5" and "Answers to Section 5.3". To handle the chapter output we had to redefine \@chapter to output the header to the answer file. The alternative would have been to defined another command \chapteranswerheadingout (or something) which we then had to remember to insert after every \chapter. (Similar remarks for \section, although we did not actually do that for the answers there was a spacing problem we had to handle by redefining \@section.) What is needed there is an \everychapter command. LaTeX3e should probably have an \everyfoo command automatically generated by every definition \foo that calls \@section. In a more detailed way, we should be able to insert code to run BEFORE every section (chapter, whatever) and immediately AFTER every section. Similarly to handle recent complaints the \list command should have a way to run code before the list starts, before each item, after each item, and after the last item. Perhaps this is already in progress. But in any case I think this sort of vectoring is one of the most important modifications the LaTeX3 committee can make. -- Charles Wells Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7058, USA 216 368 2893