Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:40:33 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7SCeWIU001664 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:40:32 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7SCaD8r021756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:36:13 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7SACXA4008953; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:36:06 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 287996 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:36:06 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7SCQ6ln015369 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:26:06 +0200 Received: from mail-fx0-f211.google.com (mail-fx0-f211.google.com [209.85.220.211]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7SCQ0iB012435 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:26:04 +0200 Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so1515266fxm.10 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:26:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.102.211.35 with SMTP id j35mr243528mug.35.1251462362350; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:26:02 -0700 (PDT) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:26:01 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: T T Subject: Re: [REQ] "TeX: Rejoining the mainstream" - comments requested To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -6.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:40:33.0207 (UTC) FILETIME=[BBE44C70:01CA27DC] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6036 Hi, I joined the list not so long ago with the main intension of lurking, as I don't feel qualified enough for more technical discussions. This thread, however, is more general and touches upon some very important questions, so I decided to chime in for this one time. For those who don't know me, I'm mostly just another LaTeX user and since recently also a member of the TeX Live development team. I'm also quite interested in developments happening in LaTeX space. As I understand, the main criticism of LaTeX3 project given by J.F. is the choice of TeX macro language for its implementation. Although the issue of named vs numbered arguments (given as an example) seems to me largely a nitpicking, I too wonder if the LaTeX3 team does not prematurely put a cap on project's potential by using TeX macros for all programming. Now, I don't want to start a discussion on programming languages and their virtues, but rather I want to focus on one question: are there any clear limitations of what can be accomplished with TeX macros in the context of broadly taken document preparation? Of course TeX is Turing complete, yadda yadda, but I want to look at this from a practical rather than theoretical point of view. Some features that I would like to see in LaTeX3 include: * document model (a well defined data structure with programmatic access to all document elements), * ability to flexibly manipulate/transform those elements and operate on the document as a whole, * ability to store and reuse the results of those manipulations and not only to proceed down the TeX guts to produce typeset output. Can the above be reasonably accomplished with TeX macro language? In another thread (subject: xparse) a possibility of using some kind of a preprocessor was mentioned to do the complex data processing prior to the typesetting step. I find the idea quite interesting as it widens the solution space significantly. Has this option been considered? Cheers, Tomek