X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3405" "Sat" "5" "July" "1997" "15:48:54" "+0100" "Robin Fairbairns" "Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK" nil "73" "Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)" "^Date:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA08823; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 16:49:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.D00DB9CF@listserv.gmd.de>; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 16:49:05 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 164276 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 16:49:00 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with SMTP id QAA28020 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 16:48:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #6) id 0wkW8v-0002Cd-00; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:48:57 +0100 Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Jul 1997 15:54:10 -0000." <199707051402.QAA03483@centre.univ-orleans.fr> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:48:54 +0100 From: Robin Fairbairns Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals) Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2270 > > I'm readily capable of giving opinions on many packages I've used, but > > I'm not about to give away my (often private) documents that > > constitute the only tests I've made of them. > > OK, so when you send a bug report to an author, you just say "I found > that your package xyz does not work"? Not very useful. Good point. However, a bug report (certain rather limited circumstances excepted) doesn't get published for all to see. As a package author, I wouldn't want the entire repertoire of `recommendation' for my packages to be the contents of the bug reports ;-) > If you call your "document that uses it" a test file, after having > stripped off indications about your religious beliefs, personal > address, name of your pets, and other facts that make it an (often > private) document, that would be perfect for me. An opinion would go > to /dev/null as I have no way to check it and make an opinion myself. We have to agree to differ here. I regularly accept people's opinions of things as the first step in my path to deciding what to do myself. Oh, and by the way, I actually _publish_ the name of my pet. On the Web... > > I really do not believe that an exercise to produce test suites/demo > > programs for packages is effort well spent. > > If you care only about experts, such as Robin Fairbairns or > Sebastian Rahtz, I agree it is certainly useless. I don't think I implied it was useless. I merely implied that an attempt to acquire, verify, and publish a comprehensive set was doomed. I believe attempting to acquire a set of informed opinions of the available packages is a demanding enough task... > But if you care also about newcomers to TeX and average users, > I really do believe that an exercise to produce test suites/demo > programs for packages is effort well spent. I have included several > demo files in AsTeX distribution, and it seems to be very much > appreciated by users. If you carefully limit the task you're undertaking, you can always achieve what you're after. I don't have the AsTeX distribution (though I do have the manual you kindly sent me), but I would assume you "included what you could do". > And look at Microsoft programming languages, I would far rather not... > such as Visual C++ or Visual Basic: each instruction and procedure > (which are the equivalent of macros and packages) comes with several > examples that you can cut and paste into your document. If users did > not like that, do you think Microsoft would have spent a cent to do > such work? I don't think we're looking at an issue of what we get for our money's worth, since we don't have any money, to speak of. Money means different things to different people: if you're running a commercial mega-empire, money is the means to attract more money, but if you're running a tiny non-profit organisation you get to have a personal feel about every penny/centime of it. I don't have a lot of experience of the mega-empire world, but I know I feel very differently about UK TUG's money than I used to about the money of the small firm which If we can get a useful set of demo programs together, all well and good, but I would be surprised if we did. I'll settle for a coordinated set of opinions. I think I've argued long enough about this one (probably too long): all I want is a little pragmatism about what is achievable. I shall shut up now. Robin F