Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:19 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0NKND6C014073 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:23:17 +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 h0NKBLtt011884; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:11:21 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C31D.44785580" 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 h0MN04ed000617; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:03:56 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 8531 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:03:56 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0NJru5f010890 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:53:56 +0100 Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0NK1Att010126 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:01:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 18bnXA-0000zf-06; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:01:08 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (520018396234-0001@[62.226.11.135]) by fmrl08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 18bnWo-1PELuSC; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:00:46 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0NK0cjI009198 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:00:42 +0100 Received: (from dak@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h0NK0Y8c009194; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:00:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200301231843.18419.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Lines: 133 References: <15915.60496.798501.907773@lin2.idris.fr> <15918.44561.293583.31657@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <200301231843.18419.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2003 20:23:19.0998 (UTC) FILETIME=[45109DE0:01C2C31D] 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: -2.5 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LICR objects in math Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:00:30 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LICR objects in math Thread-Index: AcLDHUVGGgdoXFBuQVK5eO2jVoERsQ== From: "David Kastrup" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4479 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C31D.44785580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Timothy Murphy writes: > On Wednesday 22 January 2003 15:40, David Kastrup wrote: > > > I have sent a message to the tetex-pretest list telling people > > that it is possible that there would come a time when it would be > > appreciated if using eTeX as default engine for "latex" might be > > reasonably easy to do and that the way of achieving that should be > > well-documented. teTeX already comes with a separate "elatex", > > but most TeX shells and users of course will use "latex" instead. > > First of all, I should say that I regard myself as an "ordinary" > LaTeX user. When I see the names Arsenau, Mittelbach or Kastrup I > know my brain is about to be assaulted mercilessly, causing me grave > depression at the degeneration of my mental faculties. > > But to return to the subject at issue, as far as I can see your belief = is > > (1) eTeX is better than LaTeX You are confused. LaTeX is a macro package which can be used under both TeX and eTeX. > (2) But people are not using eTeX as they should be People are not using eTeX because using eTeX is not necessary for using LaTeX. That is because LaTeX developers are wasting manmonths of time in order to make sure that eTeX is not necessary for using LaTeX. Package developers are also wasting manyears of time because (since LaTeX can be run without eTeX) they feel they must not use any eTeX features. If you, for example, take a look at the combined work that went into fontenc, inputenc and things like \DeclareRobustCommand, notice that the solutions are both quite inefficient, complicated and hardly maintainable and break under certain circumstances, and notice that eTeX facilities would have made much of the stuff near to trivial, it is enough to tear your hairs. I am proposing a migration plan to make sure that at some future point of time, both LaTeX core as well as package developers might be allowed to rely on eTeX features. This would not be necessary if you assumed that LaTeX development must grind to halt, and the sooner the better. > (3) Therefore eTeX should be renamed LaTeX, > and LaTeX renamed dinoTeX. No. eTeX would keep its name, and LaTeX would keep its name. The executable called `latex' would refer to a LaTeX format running on the evirtex executable. > But speaking (I believe) for the hoi polloi, I am perfectly happy > with LaTeX as it is. If you are of the opinion that LaTeX development must stop right now, you are free to never ever upgrade your TeX distribution again. Then you can stay perfectly happy with LaTeX as it is. But there are people interested in continuing work with LaTeX. Since you are not interested in their work and have decided you never want to get to see it, you are in no position to tell those people that you are of the opinion they should not be allowed to have their work made easier. > If there were something I wanted to do which I could do with eTeX > but not with LaTeX then I would use eTeX. You are still confused. LaTeX is LaTeX regardless of the underlying engine. Current LaTeX versions will run on both eTeX and TeX. There is no compelling reason that I have heard uttered up to now that would make crippling LaTeX forever to a non-eTeX executable a good idea. > But I do not at the moment feel any urge to use \splitdiscards or > any of the other macros you suggest, and in fact wouldn't have the > slightest idea how to use them anyway. And for that reason nobody else must ever be allowed to use them? And LaTeX must never be improved to provide facilities that are pretty much impossible to implement without them? Again, if you demand that you may never be able to do anything with LaTeX beyond what you can do now, the solution is simple: don't upgrade, ever. > It seems to me that if eTeX is so much better than LaTeX then it is > up to you to proselytize for eTeX, by pointing out the wonderful > things one can do if only one uses eTeX in place of LaTeX. You are confused. LaTeX is a macro package... But I repeat myself. > If you could persuade people that eTeX offered much better > facilities then more and more people would use eTeX, and when say > 40% (or even 20%) of LaTeX users had switched to eTeX it might be > reasonable to make it the default. There is no reason to switch to eTeX if eTeX features are not used, and nobody dares use eTeX features if they must assume that they are not available. This situation is crippling further LaTeX and package development, and I have yet to see a compelling reason why one should rejoice in that. Your "nobody should ever need more than 64kB" tirade does not change that. If you don't want to use eTeX, but your distribution vendor backhandedly slips you a copy of eTeX under your belt, what will be the awful consequences? Better memory utilization, more functionality from some package (like the trace package), more working styles, more working documents (no room for a further dimen will get much rarer...), bidirectional typesetting might work inadvertantly and so on. How horrible. How devastating. Please come up with a single good reason why you would consider it a disadvantage if your favorite TeX distribution were to get an eTeX-based latex executable and format. Just a single one. > After all, many (most?) LaTeX users have switched to pdfLaTeX, > without it being renamed LaTeX, just because it offered us a great > new facility. eTeX offers new programming facilities, not new user facilities. If you do not intend to work in TeX programming, your only valid concern about this matter is when you would expect disadvantages as a user. So please name a single disadvantage for you such a change of policy would cause you. And no, I don't count "what our forefathers have used was always good enough for us" among that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C31D.44785580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LICR objects in math

        Timothy = Murphy <tim@BIRDSNEST.MATHS.TCD.IE> writes:

> On Wednesday 22 January 2003 15:40, David Kastrup = wrote:
>
> > I have sent a message to the tetex-pretest = list telling people
> > that it is possible that there would come a = time when it would be
> > appreciated if using eTeX as default engine = for "latex" might be
> > reasonably easy to do and that the way of = achieving that should be
> > well-documented.  teTeX already comes = with a separate "elatex",
> > but most TeX shells and users of course = will use "latex" instead.
>
> First of all, I should say that I regard myself = as an "ordinary"
> LaTeX user.  When I see the names Arsenau, = Mittelbach or Kastrup I
> know my brain is about to be assaulted = mercilessly, causing me grave
> depression at the degeneration of my mental = faculties.
>
> But to return to the subject at issue, as far as = I can see your belief is
>
> (1) eTeX is better than LaTeX

You are confused.  LaTeX is a macro package which = can be used under
both TeX and eTeX.

> (2) But people are not using eTeX as they should = be

People are not using eTeX because using eTeX is not = necessary for
using LaTeX.  That is because LaTeX developers = are wasting manmonths
of time in order to make sure that eTeX is not = necessary for using
LaTeX.  Package developers are also wasting = manyears of time because
(since LaTeX can be run without eTeX) they feel they = must not use any
eTeX features.  If you, for example, take a look = at the combined work
that went into fontenc, inputenc and things = like
\DeclareRobustCommand, notice that the solutions are = both quite
inefficient, complicated and hardly maintainable and = break under
certain circumstances, and notice that eTeX = facilities would have made
much of the stuff near to trivial, it is enough to = tear your hairs.

I am proposing a migration plan to make sure that at = some future
point of time, both LaTeX core as well as package = developers might be
allowed to rely on eTeX features.

This would not be necessary if you assumed that LaTeX = development
must grind to halt, and the sooner the better.

> (3) Therefore eTeX should be renamed = LaTeX,
> and LaTeX renamed dinoTeX.

No.  eTeX would keep its name, and LaTeX would = keep its name.  The
executable called `latex' would refer to a LaTeX = format running on
the evirtex executable.

> But speaking (I believe) for the hoi polloi, I am = perfectly happy
> with LaTeX as it is.

If you are of the opinion that LaTeX development must = stop right now,
you are free to never ever upgrade your TeX = distribution again.  Then
you can stay perfectly happy with LaTeX as it = is.

But there are people interested in continuing work = with LaTeX.  Since
you are not interested in their work and have decided = you never want
to get to see it, you are in no position to tell = those people that
you are of the opinion they should not be allowed to = have their work
made easier.

> If there were something I wanted to do which I = could do with eTeX
> but not with LaTeX then I would use eTeX.

You are still confused.  LaTeX is LaTeX = regardless of the underlying
engine.  Current LaTeX versions will run on both = eTeX and TeX.  There
is no compelling reason that I have heard uttered up = to now that
would make crippling LaTeX forever to a non-eTeX = executable a good
idea.

> But I do not at the moment feel any urge to use = \splitdiscards or
> any of the other macros you suggest, and in fact = wouldn't have the
> slightest idea how to use them anyway.

And for that reason nobody else must ever be allowed = to use them?
And LaTeX must never be improved to provide = facilities that are
pretty much impossible to implement without = them?

Again, if you demand that you may never be able to do = anything with
LaTeX beyond what you can do now, the solution is = simple: don't
upgrade, ever.

> It seems to me that if eTeX is so much better = than LaTeX then it is
> up to you to proselytize for eTeX, by pointing = out the wonderful
> things one can do if only one uses eTeX in place = of LaTeX.

You are confused.  LaTeX is a macro = package...  But I repeat myself.

> If you could persuade people that eTeX offered = much better
> facilities then more and more people would use = eTeX, and when say
> 40% (or even 20%) of LaTeX users had switched to = eTeX it might be
> reasonable to make it the default.

There is no reason to switch to eTeX if eTeX features = are not used,
and nobody dares use eTeX features if they must = assume that they are
not available.  This situation is crippling = further LaTeX and package
development, and I have yet to see a compelling = reason why one should
rejoice in that.

Your "nobody should ever need more than = 64kB" tirade does not change
that.  If you don't want to use eTeX, but your = distribution vendor
backhandedly slips you a copy of eTeX under your = belt, what will be
the awful consequences?

Better memory utilization, more functionality from = some package (like
the trace package), more working styles, more working = documents (no
room for a further dimen will get much rarer...), = bidirectional
typesetting might work inadvertantly and so on.  = How horrible.  How
devastating.

Please come up with a single good reason why you would = consider it a
disadvantage if your favorite TeX distribution were = to get an
eTeX-based latex executable and format.

Just a single one.

> After all, many (most?) LaTeX users have switched = to pdfLaTeX,
> without it being renamed LaTeX, just because it = offered us a great
> new facility.

eTeX offers new programming facilities, not new user = facilities.  If
you do not intend to work in TeX programming, your = only valid concern
about this matter is when you would expect = disadvantages as a user.

So please name a single disadvantage for you such a = change of policy
would cause you.  And no, I don't count = "what our forefathers have
used was always good enough for us" among = that.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C31D.44785580--