References: <v03110702b268dfad082e@[130.237.37.120]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v03110703b268f31d99a1@[130.237.37.120]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <364340A4.3A5CE73C@na.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:55:39 +0100
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: pattern matching in LaTeX
Status: R

At 19:32 +0100 1998/11/06, Marcel Oliver wrote:
>Question: how difficult would it be to extend TeX to
>allow for dual/multiple tier expansion?  What are the draw-backs?

(I leave to somebody else more qualified to respond to your particular idea.)

For the general problems with TeX one must rely on more general mechanisms
to solve them.

>So precisely why do you think
>one needs to distinguish "authoring semantics", "typesetting style" and
>"fine-tuning"?

It depends on how far one wants to go: On the more general side, one would
work through the different movements with TeX/LaTeX, SGML, etc, isolate the
semantic components, define runtime object which can be used by the
Lex/Yacc parts to define a local syntactic module. A rather major
undertaking. :-)

  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/>