X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1920" "Fri" "11" "February" "1994" "10:16:02" "GMT" "David Carlisle" "carlisle@cs.man.ac.uk" "<199402111018.AA18557@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "45" "Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lis" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994021110:16:02" "On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lis" nil "<9402110936.AA26673@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA20797; Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:19:49 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA06824; Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:18:48 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA18557 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Fri, 11 Feb 1994 11:18:45 +0100 Message-Id: <199402111018.AA18557@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 1917; Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:18:33 +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 1915; Fri, 11 Feb 1994 11:18:33 +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 3121; Fri, 11 Feb 1994 11:17:55 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <9402110936.AA26673@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> (message from Mike Piff on Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:27:43 LCL) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 10:16:02 GMT From: David Carlisle Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lis Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1536 Mike, I had sworn not to respond to any more of these messages, as you dont appear to read any of the replies, but one last go. > [verbatim] I am pretty sure that few people would have anyway Ha. How many times have we said `few people would have done that'. Take an example you ought to know well: A certain register that was never used by LaTeX, but which was allocated, presumably left over from an early trial version. `few people would have used that' It was only a few days before several people reported the missing register. (\footheight) > Were the spacing problems [in array] insurmountable? It is not a problem. It is a deliberate and documented difference in the way it treats vertical rules. All tables with vertical rules end up being wider, which can affect the spacing of the rest of document, it won't in 99% of the cases, but that is not the point. > Hours probably wasted, in that the problem would never have arisen > if this False. the compatibily mode does not only affect the package handling. It (potentially) affects all the commands we have altered. Read the documentation. If we get bug reports that some of the changes affect existing documents, then *more* stuff can go into the compatability file to ensure better compatibility. > The implication is that \documentclass will take over from > \documentstyle, and that new styles will have to conform to the > [\documentclass] format. With hard-wired limited options? classes do not have hard wired limited options. They just have to declare what options they can handle. The standard classes are only designed to deal with a range of page sizes, but if you want write a class that will handle any string as a valid option, loading the file `option.piffclass' then all you have to do is declare in piffclass.cls that you have written this wonderfully generic code by going: \DeclareOption*{\input{\CurrentOption.piffclass}} David