X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["1144" "Mon" "22" "June" "1998" "13:10:46" "+0200" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "24" "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 NAA00623;
	Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:11:08 +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 <0.ACC18A54@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:11:04 +0200
Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
          (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 367434 for
          LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:10:50 +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 NAA07879 for
          <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:10:48
          +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from [130.237.37.30] (sl117.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.143]) by
          mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08292 for
          <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:10:39
          +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v03110707b1b3e8ee533c@[130.237.37.30]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:10:46 +0200
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Modules
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 2582

  A clarification: The way I did the modules, the user cannot type say
\math/phi at all: It would be read as \math /phi, because to the user, the
"/" works as normal.

  So it is possible to have a lower, development level code that works
entirely different from what is the case now, but on top of that building
development or user levels which work pretty normal, relative to the
already existing TeX and LaTeX2e standards.

  But then with this new, entirely new lowest development level code, it
will be possible to add entirely new standards of producing code. Then
these new ways will be orthogonal to the old LaTeX2e/TeX standards, so that
these do not conflict.

  One idea one might explore is a TeX environment: It has all the old TeX
names defined locally within that environment, but those definitions expand
to the global \tex/<command name> definitions.

  Anyway, this is the kind of picture I have in my mind.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:haberg@member.ams.org>
                  * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>