X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1250" "Mon" "22" "June" "1998" "12:52:41" "+0200" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "27" "Re: Modules" "^Date:" nil nil "6" nil "Modules" nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA31481; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:54:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.5C95A4FF@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:54:31 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 367392 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:54:25 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06579 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:52:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.30] (sl81.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.107]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07020 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:52:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199806220631.QAA11602@ricetub.anu.edu.au> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:52:41 +0200 From: Hans Aberg Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Modules Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2581 Javier Bezos wrote: > Renaming commands > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Suppose someone is determined to study the internal latex code with the > new naming scheme. He take the TeXbook and... surprise! The latex code is > absolutely unintelligible. Richard Walker wrote: >This was my reaction too. And the new names are often not transparent >renamings of the original - as you point out, some are subtly >different. You need to know not only the new names but you need to >keep the implementations in mind too. I think the contrary: This is a very good, bold move, that is, if it can be made to work. One then becomes independent of that old PlainTeX once for all, and is free to build up an entirely new consistent logical structure. This will perhaps prepare for a new version of TeX, which can take care of the new LaTeX3 structures efficiently. That is, if it can be made practical... So give it a try, I would say. (It is probably more difficult to implement the feature at a later stage than removing it if it does not work.) Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: * AMS member listing: