X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1567" "Tue" "7" "October" "1997" "13:53:28" "-0400" "Matthew Swift" "swift@ALUM.MIT.EDU" nil "31" "Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros" "^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 TAA15371; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.55702DC7@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:54:49 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210042 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:53:54 +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 TAA11100 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:53:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-93-30.BU.EDU [128.197.9.118]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id NAA125122 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:13 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17629 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:29 -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: <199710071753.NAA17629@aleph.swift.xxx> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:39:12 +0200." Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:28 -0400 From: Matthew Swift Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2382 >>>>> "H" == Hans Aberg writes: H> Otherwise, I am not sure it is necessary having all H> references getting right when working with many files, and H> doing a subfile compilation. In the scenario I am playing I myself haven't put much thought in this direction since I was explicitly trying to write a backwards-compatible system. There are benefits to the original \include system, but they are not so great that others should not be considered. The \include system does not let you do anything you couldn't do with \input. It just makes it more convenient for long documents. These conveniences don't seem as wonderful in days of more powerful equipment (it took my high school math teacher several minutes to TeX one chapter). In fact there are also pitfalls in the old system that it would be nice to fill in. As I point out in the "review of the old system" section of the newclude documentation, it is a convenient feature, when leaving out, say, chapters 2 and 3 from your book that the references still work, and the footnote numbers and page numbers of chapter 4 do not change. This allows me to get output of chapters 1 and 4+ that looks exactly like those sections of the whole document, without using some sort of post-processor to whittle down the entire dvi file to the parts I want. But it is a quite unintuitive and inconvenient consequence of the implementation that that if you switch the order of chapters 2 and 3 while they are STILL UNINCLUDED, the counters in chapters 4+ are thrown into chaos.