Message-ID:  <199607151411.PAA11848@vummath.ma.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <1343D45703A@hrz1.hrz.th-darmstadt.de>
              (MEHL@HRZ1.HRZ.TH-DARMSTADT.DE)
Date:         Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:11:29 +0100
From: David Carlisle <carlisle@MA.MAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Binding of packages to formats
Status: R

> 1. Together with this format I would like to use the normal classes
> and packages with their normal extensions .cls and .sty and not some
> fancy extensions as suggested in cfgguide.tex, the reasons being that
> these classes and packages will be used with the standard format, too
> - I don't see a reasons why I should have the same files twice on the
> hard disc with different extensions.

For this purpose you do not need any of that `fancy extension' stuff
or redefinition of \@missingfile error. In fact what you probably want
to use is the file `mylatex.tex' that is on ctan somewhere and is
specifically for making `customised' formats like this.

The code that you quoted for changing the extension was intended
for people who may have wanted to have a file article.xxx which was
*different* to the standard article.cls, and then have a customised
format such that \documentclass{article} loads article.xxx if it
exists, or article.cls if it does not.

David

(PS this type of question would probably be better asked on
comp.text.tex rather than this list)