Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:09:27 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i4GF9Mlo007192 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:09:23 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.176]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4GF5DD6029327; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:05:14 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C43B57.C7976D80" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.176]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i4E1RhNN005625; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:03:10 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 209954 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:03:09 +0200 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 (8.12.7/8.12.7/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i4GF38UZ004600 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:03:08 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.176]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4GF4ID6029142 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:04:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.209] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BPNBa-0006Z9-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:04:18 +0200 Received: from [80.129.14.11] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (TLSv1:EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BPNBa-000084-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:04:18 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id i4GF3cq25082; Sun, 16 May 2004 17:03:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <16549.4057.399610.750080@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <16550.4621.526207.509473@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2004 15:09:27.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7B46B60:01C43B57] X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:923c546e49b26a7485eda6910e23f403 X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0.2 () RCVD_IN_NJABL,RCVD_IN_SORBS Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Why don't we do just the following: Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: A<16551.33482.606374.833460@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Why don't we do just the following: Thread-Index: AcQ7V8fQHkTzNcUSQ4KwRN0p/rSZeQ== From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4786 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C43B57.C7976D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Ok, your proposal has the disadvantage that the error occurs only = when > referring to the label (and at the point of reference instead of > definition). so does yours i think, or how was your proposal meant? > And it has the advantage that if you are only out for a > \pageref in the first place, this will still be legal. well, compare it to the outcome of your proposal which looks like this: ! Undefined control sequence. \@currentlabel ...ing \label inside of a figure. l.22 \label{foo} i guess it is fairly difficult to find a short enough csname that in the = above output will look reasonable and b) it will still probably open more = questions than answering them > > any suggestion for a good text? > > \label{whatever} without preceding or enclosing \caption. > Labels must follow the item they are referencing. well "whatever" is not known when we generate that text, is it? frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C43B57.C7976D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Why don't we do just the following:

 > Ok, your proposal has the disadvantage that = the error occurs only when
 > referring to the label (and at the point = of reference instead of
 > definition).

so does yours i think, or how was your proposal = meant?

 > And it has the advantage that if you are = only out for a
 > \pageref in the first place, this will = still be legal.

well, compare it to the outcome of your proposal which = looks like this:

! Undefined control sequence.
\@currentlabel ...ing \label inside of a = figure.

l.22 \label{foo}

i guess it is fairly difficult to find a short enough = csname that in the above
output will look reasonable and b) it will still = probably open more questions
than answering them

 > > any suggestion for a good text?
 >
 > \label{whatever} without preceding or = enclosing \caption.
 > Labels must follow the item they are = referencing.

well "whatever" is not known when we = generate that text, is it?

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C43B57.C7976D80--