Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:15:42 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h67GFePP011245 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:15:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C344A3.032ACB00" 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 h67G1vGl025120; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h677rPbf016396; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:53 +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 1575 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:52 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h67G1qM9024295 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:52 +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 h67G1omp018377 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pallas.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.88] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=[jUUXy8rPhrozI8LIcl7N+xsRREEVprmV]) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 19ZYR3-0003i7-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:01:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:48:34 +0100. <3F099652.8FD2E4A9@MartinHensel.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 16:15:43.0018 (UTC) FILETIME=[03C620A0:01C344A3] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -7.2 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 syntax Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:01:49 +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: AcNEowPneGLvoVS0TZirutBxbgUNug== From: "Robin Fairbairns" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4650 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C344A3.032ACB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > 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. > > > > :-( > > In the thread about the user interface in de.comp.text.tex Frank > Mittelbach wrote several times that LaTeX3 is able to separate the > different levels of the application. In particular he spoke about a > completely independent user interface layer that enables LaTeX3 to > support several different interfaces. > > In fact, Frank states that it would not be much effort to change the > existing LaTeX3 code to adapt it to an improved user interface. > = http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3Daso61v%24i59%241%40news.online.de > > I don't understand how that fits together with your statements that > one would have to change TeX fundamentally in order to be able to have > another interface. i think you misunderstand. frank is not talking of "user interfaces that can't be implemented in tex-as-it-stands" -- no-one would expect that he would, surely? the problem here is that _you_ don't understand what we can and cannot do with tex. ambitions to regularise the use of spaces fall into that category, i'm afraid: one simply can not get "sensible" space- character processing right. latex, dating back at least to 2.09 (the earliest version i used), has some code for ignoring spaces where tex wouldn't, but the user might expect it to. what you're asking is for latex to reconstruct spaces that tex has read and thrown on the floor: the best one can hope is for heuristics about "the sort of way people write their text" (the xspace package does this, and it's not infallible). robin ------_=_NextPart_001_01C344A3.032ACB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a LaTeX3 = syntax

> > 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.
> >
> > :-(
>
> In the thread about the user interface in = de.comp.text.tex Frank
> Mittelbach wrote several times that LaTeX3 is = able to separate the
> different levels of the application. In = particular he spoke about a
> completely independent user interface layer that = enables LaTeX3 to
> support several different interfaces.
>
> In fact, Frank states that it would not be much = effort to change the
> existing LaTeX3 code to adapt it to an improved = user interface.
> http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3Daso61v%24i59%241%40news.onl= ine.de
>
> I don't understand how that fits together with = your statements that
> one would have to change TeX fundamentally in = order to be able to have
> another interface.

i think you misunderstand.

frank is not talking of "user interfaces that = can't be implemented in
tex-as-it-stands" -- no-one would expect that he = would, surely?  the
problem here is that _you_ don't understand what we = can and cannot do
with tex.  ambitions to regularise the use of = spaces fall into that
category, i'm afraid: one simply can not get = "sensible" space-
character processing right.

latex, dating back at least to 2.09 (the earliest = version i used), has
some code for ignoring spaces where tex wouldn't, but = the user might
expect it to.  what you're asking is for latex = to reconstruct spaces
that tex has read and thrown on the floor: the best = one can hope is
for heuristics about "the sort of way people = write their text" (the
xspace package does this, and it's not = infallible).

robin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C344A3.032ACB00--