Message-ID:  <E10joxY-0005rZ-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Tue, 18 May 1999 17:24:17 BST." 
              <199905181624.RAA23486@nag.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 18 May 1999 19:51:22 +0100
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
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: The bugs in the doc package
Status: R

> [problems aren't any more]
> This is using
> Package: doc 1999/03/25 v2.0h Standard LaTeX documentation package (FMi)
>
> which version do you have?

in the flurry of putting it right (both immediately before -- which
didn't work -- and just after the release) i suspect the new doc.dtx
wasn't announced :-(

> > BTW, has ever a case in which the doc checksum facility correctly detected
> > that code was missing been recorded?
>
> I'm sure Robin can give more details, but that checksum dates from a
> time when files were usually transmitted by mail, and mail gateways had
> a habit of turning \ into % and { into space and other horrors that I
> now try to forget.....

checksums (and character tables) certainly evolved back in the daft
dead days when ibm mainframes still had a toehold in the world's
networks and files lost something in translation into ebcdic and back
again.

but even now, checksums still have a function ... though not what was
originally intended.  every so often, we install something on ctan and
an eager beaver notices it's wrong ... the first indication being the
wrong checksum.  it usually means a non-final version has gone out.

r