References: Your message of "Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:30:31 +0100." 
            <v03110703b2a176947ee8@[130.237.37.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v03110702b2a1c222b7c2@[130.237.37.145]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <E0zrOT4-0007lG-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1998 21:54:42 +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: portable LaTeX
Status: R

At 15:38 +0000 1998/12/19, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>it is of course absolutely nothing whatever to do with object
>orientation in tex or the lack of it.  it's to do with what bits of a
>paragraph tex makes available to the user after it's been split into
>lines (not, as it happens, a lot).  how those bits would be made
>accessible, if that was going to happen) is a matter that could differ
>according to whether the underlying engine was trying to exhibit
>object orientation or not, but waving a magic o-o wand over tex won't
>alter the way it works in the smallest particular.

Well, that's the OO of the output language; and in order to get that OO in
the output language, you will need an engine able to process OO.

  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/>