X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["627" "Thu" "10" "February" "1994" "15:46:21" "+0100" "Rainer Schoepf" "schoepf@SC" "<199402101448.AA22778@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "18" "Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists]" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994021014:46:21" "On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists]" nil "<199402101441.AA22660@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA14842; Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:48:13 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA02195; Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:48:10 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA22778 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:48:07 +0100 Message-Id: <199402101448.AA22778@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 4463; Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:47:55 +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 4462; Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:47:55 +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 0274; Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:47:24 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Organization: Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin In-Reply-To: <199402101441.AA22660@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:46:21 +0100 From: Rainer Schoepf Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1518 Philip TAYLOR writes: > 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? The syntax rules of LaTeX2 are explained at the beginning of Leslie Lamport's book. Rainer Schoepf Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin Heilbronner Strasse 10 D-10711 Berlin Germany or