Message-Id: <199402101554.AA24705@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <9402101543.AA22197@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> (message from Philip TAYLOR
              on Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:17:28 GMT)
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:52:16 GMT
From: David Carlisle <carlisle@CS.MAN.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 should no better than to enter this thread as well]

Phil:

 > [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?

I havent got a copy of Lamport's book handy so I am not going to argue
about page numbers, but:

Anyone who uses LaTeX at all will be aware that it was designed with
the intention of giving a consistent syntax to a wide range of
commands. (Some people complain that some commands are not as
consistent as they could be, but that is beside (this) point.)

It was a publicly stated intention before 2e was written that we
would try to maintain this consistency.

David