Reply-to: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Message-id: <m0sWSGx-0006GoC@rumple.soas.ac.uk>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 17:42:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: Frank Bennett <fbennett@RUMPLE.SOAS.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject: [Q] modguide.tex policy
Status: R

I've just read again through the latest modguide.tex file, and I
have a question.  In the camel.dtx package, there is an entry
that starts off:

    \long\def\@footnotetext#1{ [...]

This is a command of the same name as one of the internals of the
LaTeX2e kernel.  It is redefined with the same content as the
kernel command, plus the following:

 \@law@infoottrue%                 % Hooks for citation manager
 \ifnum\the\c@citesinfoot=1\relax%             %
  \global\let\@law@lastcite\@law@currentcite%  %
 \else%                                        %
  \gdef\@law@lastcite{\@dummy}%                %
 \fi%                                          %

This admittedly still kludge-like insertion is used to monitor
the context within which a citation appears.  Although I stand to
be proven wrong, I think that without this or a similar
modification of LaTeX internals, it is not possible to properly
support context-sensitive in-footnote citations in LaTeX.  Given
that this is a very common style of citation in the social
sciences, I believe that the modification is necessary if LaTeX
is to expand in that direction.

Now here's my puzzle for the team.  Does this breach the terms
set down in modguide.tex: is this `modification of the contents
of a file'?  As I read it, it is not, technically, a breach.

But suppose the LaTeX kernel is upgraded, in a way that affects
the internal structure of the \@footnotetext black box, perhaps
to add other interface flags.  Had I *not* redefined this
internal, Camel would work with the new version.  But as it
stands, Camel would redefine this internal command, wiping out
the new interface flag, and possibly breaking LaTeX itself.

So maybe modguide.tex *should* make this a breach.  But there's
no other way to get the functionality needed by this package.

Thoughts?

--
Frank G Bennett, Jr
Law Department, SOAS, London
Tel: (071)323-6351
email: fbennett@rumple.soas.ac.uk
WWW: http://rumple.soas.ac.uk/~fbennett/