Message-Id: <199402101441.AA22660@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 14:30:47 GMT
From: Philip TAYLOR <CHAA006@vax.rhbnc.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: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists]
Status: R

>>  > I don't follow this argument.  \documentstyle can keep its old syntax, but
>>  > \documentclass is outside LaTeX209 and can do what it likes. Similarly
>>  > \...package... commands are entirely new.

>> is besides the point. \documentclass, as well as any other new
>> command, has to conform to the syntax rules laid down for
>> LaTeX2. Anyone who likes to maintain that this decision was not
>> correct is welcome to do so, but it is not going to be changed.

Much as I hate to argue with Rainer in public, I must query this last
paragraph: what possible `syntax rules laid down for LaTeX2' can affect
the syntax of a new primitive such as \documentclass?  Surely the
specifier of a new primitive is entitled to specify the syntax of such,
as well as its semantics?

                                        ** Phil.