Message-Id: <199402091406.AA19387@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed,
              09 Feb 94 13:41:38 L.)
              <9402091356.AA17606@gauss.math.uni-frankfurt.de>
Date:         Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:10:02 +0100
From: Anselm Lingnau <lingnau@MATH.UNI-FRANKFURT.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Continuation lines
Status: R

Mike Piff <M.Piff@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK> writes:

> Well, I would regard the solution as changing the output routine, just as
> much as changing \@outputpage is changing the output routine. One is changing
> the way the output routine works whether one changes the internal \@outputpage
> or the internal \@oddpagefooter or whatever.

This may be nitpicking, but IMHO there is some difference in degree between
changing \@outputpage and changing the footer -- the footer is something
that's usually defined in a document style, but the output routine proper is
buried inside latex.tex. Of course, since footers and such are attached while
the output routine is running, the commands that generate them are technically
part of it, but I believe that they are not quite as internal as \@outputpage.
Myself, I will hack on footers as a matter of course when I'm defining my own
page styles, but will think (at least) twice before touching the output
routine itself.

Aren't there style options out there that will let you define your own headers
and footers? I haven't tried any of these, but I assume that it will be quite
possible to put up a multi-line footer that contains a mark. As far as the
`question ... continued' bit is concerned, from looking at the Companion I
believe that there are now `Boolean variables', so it seems that we can do
what we used to need \newif for, in a way that's blessed by LaTeX.

The original problem is probably more complicated than what I'm thinking of at
the moment. Please don't hold that against me.

Anselm
---
Anselm Lingnau .................................. lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de
My growing impression of C++, object-oriented programming, etc., is that it
attempts to allow programmers to conveniently reuse their mistakes.
                                                              --- Stephen Uitti