Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:54:01 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h65MrwPP005114 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:53:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34348.53414A80" Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h65Ml6Gl008756; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:47:07 +0200 (MET DST) 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 h65M05qA006431; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:45:26 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0106 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:45:26 +0200 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 h65MjQpU006883 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:45:26 +0200 Received: from wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk (mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.15]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h65Ml2mp012400 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:47:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pallas.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.88] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=[043z+wASZB6madLnuneBxd3aqmrqyKjs]) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 19Yvo7-000274-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:47:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:24:02 +0100. <3F075002.72955C93@MartinHensel.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 22:54:01.0243 (UTC) FILETIME=[53665EB0:01C34348] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -6.6 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 syntax Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:47:02 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 syntax Thread-Index: AcNDSFOLLuiHr78rSla7kyxaT8S2xQ== From: "Robin Fairbairns" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4638 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34348.53414A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Lastly, I want to state my amazement about David's initial question > > Do you actually know the internals of TeX? > > Why should I? I suggested a user interface! The user should not be > required to know the internals of TeX in order to be able to use > LaTeX3! because of the nature of tex, i'm afraid. > If I want to save a file, I'm happy that I do not have to know > the internals of the file system, how my OS links files, where it > stores its TOC, what access mode it uses, what algoriths it uses to > control the HD arms, how it keeps track of the free disk space and so > on. I am especially thankful that saving a file works just the same > way if I save on floppy disk or a network. about 5 years before tex was released, i wrote a small operating system to support a larger project. that operating system was used for quite a while by people sitting at the teletype console; and in that operating system, you had to know about the layout of the disc hardware. which is not to boast that cambridge research students in those days had lots of hair on their chests... i want merely to point out that tex was designed so long ago that its user interface, and the user interfaces of packages built on it, are bound up with its internals in a way that would be quite unacceptable today. david is right: to make assertions about the way the user interface "will be", you need to know whether your proposal is actually practicable. if any part of your proposal is not practicable, there's a danger that everything you suggest will be ignored, however good _some_ parts of it are. the fact is, that many people complain about the restrictions that tex places on our programming, but no-one is willing to throw out the basis of the "programming model" of tex -- rebuilding tex from scratch is just too much of a job. :-( ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34348.53414A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 = syntax

> Lastly, I want to state my amazement about = David's initial question
> > Do you actually know the internals of = TeX?
>
> Why should I? I suggested a user interface! The = user should not be
> required to know the internals of TeX in order = to be able to use
> LaTeX3!

because of the nature of tex, i'm afraid.

> If I want to save a file, I'm happy that I do not = have to know
> the internals of the file system, how my OS = links files, where it
> stores its TOC, what access mode it uses, what = algoriths it uses to
> control the HD arms, how it keeps track of the = free disk space and so
> on. I am especially thankful that saving a file = works just the same
> way if I save on floppy disk or a = network.

about 5 years before tex was released, i wrote a small = operating
system to support a larger project.  that = operating system was used
for quite a while by people sitting at the teletype = console; and in
that operating system, you had to know about the = layout of the disc
hardware.

which is not to boast that cambridge research students = in those days
had lots of hair on their chests...  i want = merely to point out that
tex was designed so long ago that its user interface, = and the user
interfaces of packages built on it, are bound up with = its internals in
a way that would be quite unacceptable today.

david is right: to make assertions about the way the = user interface
"will be", you need to know whether your = proposal is actually
practicable.  if any part of your proposal is = not practicable, there's
a danger that everything you suggest will be ignored, = however good
_some_ parts of it are.

the fact is, that many people complain about the = restrictions that tex
places on our programming, but no-one is willing to = throw out the
basis of the "programming model" of tex -- = rebuilding tex from scratch
is just too much of a job.

:-(

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34348.53414A80--