Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:45:38 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h69HjZPP021410 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:45:36 +0200 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 h69HP1Gl028942; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:25:01 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C34641.E8428D00" 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 h68M02qR007911; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:24:48 +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 1809 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:24:48 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h69HOmM9019860 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:24:48 +0200 Received: from mail.npc.de (fw.npc.de [62.225.140.214]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h69HOpGl028909 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:24:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by mail.npc.de (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 5BF281533; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:24:47 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <200307091507.51151.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> References: <3F075002.72955C93@MartinHensel.de> <200307081028.19280.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> <16139.118.62805.453383@puma.npc.de> <200307091507.51151.tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 7.04 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2003 17:45:38.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[E86C8330:01C34641] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -19.8 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Off topic: TeX macro language and Pascal Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:24:47 +0100 Message-ID: A<16140.20447.64534.863194@pussy.npc.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Off topic: TeX macro language and Pascal Thread-Index: AcNGQeiIVT6bYFOmRgmsMZ8eZVpLeg== From: "Joachim Schrod" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4667 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34641.E8428D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "TM" =3D=3D Timothy Murphy writes: TM> On Tuesday 08 July 2003 18:33, Joachim Schrod wrote: >> In particular, the macro language is not only dreadful, but may be >> called "the most horrible macro language after the C preprocessor" >> with full rights. TM> I don't agree about TeX. TM> It seems to me that when someone invents a language like TeX TM> they can't really know how it is going to develop -- Well, DEK is active in formal languages since before FORTRAN (actually, he defined large parts of that field), so he knew what he did back in the late seventies. I talked personally about that topic with him, so I'm very sure that he agrees with me. He simply didn't imagine what programming tasks one wants to do within a typesetter and thus chose a very simplified and easy to implement programming model. TM> I suspect you want a language like Pascal -- Heaven forbid. An imperative teaching language from the 70s won't bring us any substantial steps further. IMO we need typesetting specifications that are (1) declarative, (2) extensible (to add new attributes/verbs/primitives to the specification language), (3) modular, e.g., support for interfaces and encapsulation, (4) support polymorphism -- and thus inheritance (maybe object-based, not class-based), (5) has a full-blown exception model. Aspects support and a good macro system (like the one in Scheme or in Common Lisp) would be plus points, too. TM> it's obvious that the LaTeX team want this, TM> since their starting point (I don't know if this goes back to = Lamport) TM> seems to be the translation of TeX into a Pascal-like language, TM> with the definition of loop macros, etc. I don't know where you get this impression from. There ain't no loop construct in Pascal. An iteration is a basic (though not fundamental) control constructs and pops up in almost all practical programming languages over time. In fact, \loop is implemented in plain TeX, by DEK. Once, there were pseudo-Algol or pseudo-Pascal comments in the code. But the LaTeX team has replaced more and more of them over the last few years; in their implementation you won't find that stuff any more. So it seems to me that you're barking up the wrong tree here. Cheers, Joachim -- =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany ``How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the = page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route = to typographic excellence?'' -- Peter Flynn ------_=_NextPart_001_01C34641.E8428D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Off topic: TeX macro language and Pascal

>>>>> "TM" =3D=3D Timothy = Murphy <tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> writes:
TM> On Tuesday 08 July 2003 18:33, Joachim Schrod = wrote:

>> In particular, the macro language is not only = dreadful, but may be
>> called "the most horrible macro = language after the C preprocessor"
>> with full rights.

TM> I don't agree about TeX.
TM> It seems to me that when someone invents a = language like TeX
TM> they can't really know how it is going to = develop --

Well, DEK is active in formal languages since before = FORTRAN
(actually, he defined large parts of that field), so = he knew what he
did back in the late seventies. I talked personally = about that topic
with him, so I'm very sure that he agrees with me. He = simply didn't
imagine what programming tasks one wants to do within = a typesetter and
thus chose a very simplified and easy to implement = programming model.

TM> I suspect you want a language like Pascal = --

Heaven forbid. An imperative teaching language from = the 70s won't
bring us any substantial steps further.

IMO we need typesetting specifications that are (1) = declarative, (2)
extensible (to add new attributes/verbs/primitives to = the
specification language), (3) modular, e.g., support = for interfaces and
encapsulation, (4) support polymorphism -- and thus = inheritance (maybe
object-based, not class-based), (5) has a full-blown = exception model.
Aspects support and a good macro system (like the one = in Scheme or in
Common Lisp) would be plus points, too.

TM> it's obvious that the LaTeX team want = this,
TM> since their starting point (I don't know if = this goes back to Lamport)
TM> seems to be the translation of TeX into a = Pascal-like language,
TM> with the definition of  loop macros, = etc.

I don't know where you get this impression from. There = ain't no loop
construct in Pascal. An iteration is a basic (though = not fundamental)
control constructs and pops up in almost all = practical programming
languages over time. In fact, \loop is implemented in = plain TeX, by
DEK.

Once, there were pseudo-Algol or pseudo-Pascal = comments in the code.
But the LaTeX team has replaced more and more of them = over the last
few years; in their implementation you won't find = that stuff any more.
So it seems to me that you're barking up the wrong = tree here.

Cheers,
        = Joachim

--
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D
Joachim = Schrod           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Email: = jschrod@acm.org
Roedermark, Germany

        ``How do we = persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page
        like = peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to
        = typographic = excellence?''          =              = -- Peter Flynn

------_=_NextPart_001_01C34641.E8428D00--