Message-Id: <199402101552.AA24657@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <199402101527.QAA01591@hp5.iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> from
              "Philip TAYLOR" at Feb 10, 94 03:17:28 pm
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:51:02 +0100
From: Joachim Schrod <schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.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: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists]
Status: R

Phil wrote:
>
> 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,

Check out Appendix C. (You might have detected it if you have looked
in the Table of Contents and saw that that the title of this appendix
is ``A Reference Manual.'')
    I won't argue about the question _if_ this appendix is a
reference manual, but the information in question is handled there.

Of course, you won't find a formal definition. But you won't find a
formal definition of TeX, the language, either...

You will, of course, argue that \documentclass is not described
there. (I know you...) You're right. But read the rules for
\documentstyle and remember the statement that _no_ new concept was
introduced. An old one was clarified. That's not LaTeX3, that's still
LaTeX2.

Cheers,
        Joachim

PS: I was almost so far to write also a reflection on the difference
    between classes, packages, and options; or better, on the
    classification of these terms. But the latest triabe of Mike Piff
    convinced me that it would not have been of much use anyhow.
    (``I feel betrayed''; I was laughing aloud -- as if he had ordered
    something and they have to deliver it ...)
        A basic problem seems to be that some people seem to think
    LaTeX2e is a pre-release of LaTeX3. I wonder if they do not read
    any announcements -- the LaTeX core team said so often ``it's only
    consolidation and clarification, nothing more.'' I am, at least,
    very happy to see such a consolidation.
        Now back to the update of the Generic Local Guide...

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod                  Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany