Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:16:41 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h069Gd6C011827 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:16:40 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06959wO026330; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:05:10 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B564.52C82280" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h064ACVe008642; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:58:40 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5027 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:58:40 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h068meTk009455 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:48:40 +0100 Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h068t7EV004522 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:55:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from fwd09.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 18VT2H-0008GJ-0G; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 09:55:05 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (520018396234-0001@[217.80.157.144]) by fmrl09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 18VT2F-0gDHV2C; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:55:03 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h068t0Ep018164 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:55:00 +0100 Received: (from dak@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h068t00G018160; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:55:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> Lines: 68 References: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 09:16:42.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[53694480:01C2B564] X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -3.1 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:55:00 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK1ZFOOP4MpGp7PS3CZSVhwHmCsww== From: "David Kastrup" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4392 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B564.52C82280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richard Walker writes: > I for one consider a change like this to be inevitable. > (I just didn't want to be the first one to say so.) > > But the question then arises: why e-TeX? Why not Omega, an > e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ? Because functionality present in e-TeX is desperately needed for implementing more versatile output routines than the present, was explicitly requested by LaTeX project team members and implemented for their sake. > We could argue about which is `closest' to TeX (passes the TRIP test > and/or some other measures) but for LaTeX, why not go as far away as > possible? Because we'll never get anywhere with that approach. If we are refusing to deal with reality unless we get the perfect TeX engine, it will be another 10 years before LaTeX3 will see the light, and then nobody will be interested in it anymore. Instead of refusing to step forward until we can go as far as possible, we should concentrate on going as far as necessary, and e-TeX _is_ necessary and available. In contrast, Omega is a moving target and widely undocumented. The features specific to Omega are rather orthogonal to most of the problems the LaTeX3 project is tackling. One can very well develop a lot of functionality and implement it without needing Omega, even if Omega is at a later time going to be the engine of choice. But e-TeX's functionality is necessary for doing quite a few tasks reliably, and e-TeX is not only available now, it has been so for a number of years. > If we are calling it LaTeX 3 and even _considering_ changing the > underlying program, why not pick one (whether it exists right now or > _could_ exist once we decide exactly what we want) that addresses > most/all of the issues raised by all the years of experience with > the current LaTeX implementation? Because we can't just let serious work stall or be crippled because of pipe dreams to come. The current ignorance of e-TeX is not merely hampering ongoing LaTeX3 efforts, it is also crippling people working on LaTeX2e packages. Even if LaTeX3 will be released in 10 years only, it is a shame not being able to work with e-TeX before. I am not talking about what users will be forced to use once LaTeX3 comes out. I am talking about what engine should be available to LaTeX2e users and upwards. In addition, one can't find out what additional primitives the core would warrant if one never gets into a serious state, and one can't get into a serious state if one choses to wait all the time for non-existent features. I can tell you a dozen good reasons why it would be an excessively bad idea to declare Omega the default TeX engine for LaTeX now. I can't give you a single reason why e-TeX should not be declared the default TeX engine for LaTeX _now_. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B564.52C82280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

        Richard = Walker <Richard.Walker@CS.ANU.EDU.AU> writes:

> I for one consider a change like this to be = inevitable.
> (I just didn't want to be the first one to say = so.)
>
> But the question then arises:  why = e-TeX?  Why not Omega, an
> e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ?

Because functionality present in e-TeX is desperately = needed for
implementing more versatile output routines than the = present, was
explicitly requested by LaTeX project team members = and implemented
for their sake.

> We could argue about which is `closest' to TeX = (passes the TRIP test
> and/or some other measures) but for LaTeX, why = not go as far away as
> possible?

Because we'll never get anywhere with that = approach.  If we are
refusing to deal with reality unless we get the = perfect TeX engine,
it will be another 10 years before LaTeX3 will see = the light, and
then nobody will be interested in it anymore.

Instead of refusing to step forward until we can go as = far as
possible, we should concentrate on going as far as = necessary, and
e-TeX _is_ necessary and available.

In contrast, Omega is a moving target and widely = undocumented.  The
features specific to Omega are rather orthogonal to = most of the
problems the LaTeX3 project is tackling.

One can very well develop a lot of functionality and = implement it
without needing Omega, even if Omega is at a later = time going to be
the engine of choice.

But e-TeX's functionality is necessary for doing quite = a few tasks
reliably, and e-TeX is not only available now, it has = been so for a
number of years.

> If we are calling it LaTeX 3 and even = _considering_ changing the
> underlying program, why not pick one (whether it = exists right now or
> _could_ exist once we decide exactly what we = want) that addresses
> most/all of the issues raised by all the years = of experience with
> the current LaTeX implementation?

Because we can't just let serious work stall or be = crippled because
of pipe dreams to come.

The current ignorance of e-TeX is not merely hampering = ongoing LaTeX3
efforts, it is also crippling people working on = LaTeX2e packages.
Even if LaTeX3 will be released in 10 years only, it = is a shame not
being able to work with e-TeX before.

I am not talking about what users will be forced to = use once LaTeX3
comes out.  I am talking about what engine = should be available to
LaTeX2e users and upwards.

In addition, one can't find out what additional = primitives the core
would warrant if one never gets into a serious state, = and one can't
get into a serious state if one choses to wait all = the time for
non-existent features.

I can tell you a dozen good reasons why it would be an = excessively
bad idea to declare Omega the default TeX engine for = LaTeX now.  I
can't give you a single reason why e-TeX should not = be declared the
default TeX engine for LaTeX _now_.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B564.52C82280--