X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2183" "Wed" " 9" "February" "1994" "16:33:39" "+0100" "Joachim Schrod" "schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de" "<199402091535.AA22187@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "54" "Re: Continuation lines" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994020915:33:39" "Continuation lines" nil "<199402091351.OAA00449@hp5.iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA10664; Wed, 9 Feb 94 16:35:52 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA24941; Wed, 9 Feb 94 16:35:45 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA22187 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:35:43 +0100 Message-Id: <199402091535.AA22187@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 6251; Wed, 09 Feb 94 16:35:33 +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 6250; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:35:33 +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 6935; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:34:59 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199402091351.OAA00449@hp5.iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> from "Mike Piff" at Feb 9, 94 01:41:38 pm Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:33:39 +0100 From: Joachim Schrod Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Continuation lines Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1488 Mike Piff wrote: > > %>Joachim Schrod writes: > %> > %>> It means use \@footline (or however it > %>> is called in LaTeX) to put your ////// sentence there. > (expletive deleted) You and Anselm should never go in a pub together with Alan (or Angus, for that matter). You'll here that `expletive' more often than you've ever dreamed of... > 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 `internal' is explicetly marked as a _style parameter_ -- of course, one is able to change it; and I don't consider that as a change of internals. > LaTeX, in pure and simple form, is incapable of handling this simple task. Let's formulate it precisely: LaTeX is not able to handle this task in _exactly_ the way you want. The solution it offers does not _please_ you, that's all. But then, it get's easy: *Don't* *use* *LaTeX*. It is _obviously_ not, I repeat NOT, an appropriate tool for you. As I've said before -- and I stand to my opinion: -- If one is not able to achieve exactly the effect one wants without much effort -- and if one is not able to change one's mind about that specific effect THEN LaTeX is not the right tool. I actively encourage people to use other systems in that case, it is of no use for them. For instance, try to solve your problem in Word or in Word Perfect -- and write a technical report if it was easier. (If it was possible at all...) Use Interleaf, Framemaker, Pagemaker, etc. Go forth and create your pieces of the publishing art. Joachim PS: IMO this thread is misplaced on the LaTeX3 discussion list. Such kind of problems (how to achieve contination markers) are a topic for comp.text.tex. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Joachim Schrod Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de Computer Science Department Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany