X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2052" "Tue" "7" "October" "1997" "01:03:24" "-0400" "Matthew Swift" "swift@ALUM.MIT.EDU" nil "39" "Re: Extended include" "^Date:" nil nil "10" 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 HAA17328; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.99184AED@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 7:03:37 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209363 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:33 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21805 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id BAA115780 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:09 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA12302 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:25 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070503.BAA12302@aleph.swift.xxx> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:36:24 BST." <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:24 -0400 From: Matthew Swift Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Extended include Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2367 Hi folks! By a happy coincidence I spotted "extended include" rolling by in a log of mail which gets archived without me ever getting to it these days, which includes TeX mail. I've been submerged in other nonsense for ages, that is why Robin hasn't heard from me and no more work has been done on the newclude package that he mentioned. Includex was a hack and I began to write newclude as a more respectable user- and developer-friendly piece of code once I thought I had solved the stickier problems. It turned out I couldn't quite make the grade, and I never ended up with a solid solution. I was working out two entirely different implementations, one that was relatively complicated and used multiple aux files (static stream assignment was simple, it was the dynamic assignment that got hairy), and one that was simpler and used but a single aux file. There were certain functional limitations on each solution, so I worked on both, though the user interface was the same. As I remember, I ran up against two difficulties, though I don't remember how they were distributed between the two methods. One was the page break problem that's been mentioned in this thread. It sounds like Frank has a far stronger grasp on what to do about that than I ever had. The second problem occurred when a user aborted the LaTeX run under certain conditions, leaving an unclosed group in the aux file, which would break the next LaTeX run. I agree with Frank that it's an important question whether doing this work in LaTeX is worth it. With the universality of Perl and other text processors these days, the portability argument is weakened. I suggest I try to publish to this group the code, documentation, and notes I have lying around on this subject. I'll bring includex up to date with Robin's fixes. He's right that despite it being such a hack it still does things newclude doesn't do. And I'll release newclude; it's functional, clean, and documented, I just never got it robust enough to want to release it. Best wishes to all Matt