X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1900" "Tue" "7" "October" "1997" "22:44:57" "+0100" "David Carlisle" "david@DCARLISLE.DEMON.CO.UK" nil "43" "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 BAA03543; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:24:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.56221DCB@listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 1:24:07 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210149 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:23:45 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27044 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:23:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1001531; 7 Oct 97 23:22 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIhR3-000OWIC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:44:57 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199710071818.OAA17732@aleph.swift.xxx> (message from Matthew Swift on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:18:49 -0400) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:44:57 +0100 From: David Carlisle 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: 2386 > Hunh? Like what kind of class is that? The kind we were discussing before we wandered off topic and Frank changed the Subject to ``Extended include'' at which point it caught your eye:-) > You can't just go latex section1.tex if it doesn't have a > \documentclass in it. If it does, either you weren't using \input or > \include to include it in the first place, A proposed `journal' or `proceedings' class which redefines \documentclass and other preamble commands such that `self standing' articles *can* be input. > A typical 300+-page document (source2e for example) doesn't tax TeX at > all, and we are about to enter the era of web2c-7 with dynamic memory > allocation. Number of pages is more or less irrelevant to memory use. Source2e has almost no cross references (sadly:-) so is quite light on memory consumption. It is *slow* because all the verbatim bits are parsed `by hand' to index command usage, and large parts of the old ASCII latex209 comments are similarly parsed by hand so that commands automatically print themselves verbatim even though they are not marked up as LaTeX. > add reason 2A) for using \include: To produce a partial document > that is identical to part of the whole document. Yes that as well, but to be reliable for that use the pages generated have to be *exactly* correct and it is always difficult to be sure of that with an include system. So you \includeonly{chapter3} but the first page of chapter3 `should' start with a float from chapter2, (which is now allowed because we assume an improved system with no \clearpage) so at best the system leaves the correct amount of white space. That might be acceptable depending on what you were planning to do with these pages. If you *really* want `final form' not just a draft perhaps you really need that float to be in place in which case you need \includeonly{chapter2,chapter3} etc etc. David