Message-Id: <199402102024.AA00749@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <9402101448.AA12508@ftp.tex.ac.uk>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 20:16:12 GMT
From: Sebastian Rahtz <spqr@FTP.TEX.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

Philip TAYLOR writes:
 > 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?

its a question of avoiding anti-social behaviour, no more, no less.
its been obvious to me since 1985 what the unwritten rules for LaTeX
are, and I would no more write a user-level macro for a LaTeX package that used
^M  as a delimiter for end of argument that I would light a bonfire on
washing day, or talk about Mornington Crescent on an international
list :-}

Sebastian