Message-Id: <199402101522.AA23853@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:17:28 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

In response to my question:

 > [W]hat 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?

Rainer SCH\"OPF writes:

>> The syntax rules of LaTeX2 are explained at the beginning of Leslie
>> Lamport's book.

which not only completely ignores the question but also suggests that either
his copy of Leslie Lamport's book is completely different from mine, or that
Leslie is the author of another related book of which I am sadly unaware.  The
beginning of Leslie Lamport's ``LaTeX: A Document Preparation System'' is as
follows: title page; c-i-p data, colophon and copyright; t-o-c; l-o-t; l-o-f;
Preface; Getting Acquainted; Getting Started; Carrying On; ... By this point I
am already up to page 68 and have seen not one `syntax rule' worthy of the
name, let alone any syntax rule that says ``any new primitives added to the
language shall conform to the syntax specified by this rule''. So, in answer to
Rainer's unusually unhelpful response, I ask again:

    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 (who doesn't need a seven-line formal signature on every d@mn message).

P.S. Page ii says quite clearly ``This book describes LaTeX Version 2.09,
released 19 April 1986.  Any discrepancy between this description and the
behaviour of this or any later release of Version 2.09 is an error.  There
are only minor differences between this release and earlier releases of V2.09.''
Nowhere does it say ``and any later _version_ of LaTeX''.

P.P.S. Nowhere in the index to ``LaTeX: A Document Preparation System'' does
the word `syntax' appear as a headword, nor so far as I can see does it occur
in the table of contents...