dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/23/90)
In article <83895@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, wilcox@blob.cis.ohio-state.edu (Patricia P Wilcox) writes... >We just installed LaTeX (version 2.09?) from the U. of Washington Unix >TeX distribution and found that "\part" has been moved from the 10-point, >11-point, and 12-point style files to the main (e.g. article.sty) file. >Now people, this may be nice from the standpoint of neatness, but it >means that any customized style file someone has previously built using >article.sty as a basis will now fail, because \part will be missing. Not if they do things right. Let's suppose you wanted to have a version of the book style which, say, was identical to book except that it had an extra style option, oneside to force simplex printing (for drafts) and used times as its default font family. The common approach to this is to copy the files for book.sty etc. to, say, mybook.sty etc and edit that. The better approach is to write mybook.sty to be: %--- \def\ds@oneside{\@twosidefalse} \input{book.sty} \input{times.sty} %--- (appropriately commented, of course). The advantages are apparent: (1) one is less likely to be derailed by a change to the document style (although the more one changes, the more likely this becomes), (2) one picks up any bug-fixes to the base style automatically, (3) new document style options can be added (and with some additional work, options can be deleted or changed as well) ... Incidentally, the change you referred to was introduced no earlier than March of 1988. >*Please* think about maintaining the functionality of the enormous body >of previous work based on the original book version of LaTeX when you >set out to change things. >I'm worried that the committee working on the wonderful new upgrade of >LaTeX for TeX 3.0 will lose sight of compatibility considerations. If >the new LaTeX will not work with all previous LaTeX applications, it >should be called something else, not "LaTeX". All I can tell you about the new LaTeX is that the changes will be dramatic. I personally am looking towards SGML as the text formatting language for the 90s and have despaired somewhat of LaTeX ever being really "fixed". To take care of some of the more critical problems of LaTeX (top matter specification or page layout, for example) dramatic changes will need to be made that WILL introduce incompatibilities. There's nothing else for it. Trying to remain backwards compatible with style files and options would seriously cripple the effort. I'm having a hard enough time convincing Frank and Rainer to remain backwards-compatible with user input files. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
wilcox@blob.cis.ohio-state.edu (Patricia P Wilcox) (09/24/90)
In article <8587@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@sif.claremont.edu writes: >In article <83895@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, wilcox@blob.cis.ohio-state.edu (Patricia P Wilcox) writes... >>We just installed LaTeX (version 2.09?) from the U. of Washington Unix >>TeX distribution and found that "\part" has been moved from the 10-point, >>11-point, and 12-point style files to the main (e.g. article.sty) file. > >>Now people, this may be nice from the standpoint of neatness, but it >>means that any customized style file someone has previously built using >>article.sty as a basis will now fail, because \part will be missing. > >Not if they do things right. Granted, Don, they weren't doing things right. I'll bet you'll find that 90% of all user-generated Latex extensions are not done right. But in *TeX*, all old documents (no matter how ugly) will still work. >Incidentally, the change you referred to was introduced no >earlier than March of 1988. So? I inherited a mess that resulted when all the TeX maintenance staff went away and I joined up a year or so later. It is naive for you to assume that just because you change something in LaTeX, the whole world magically changes at the moment you make the change. 8-) >>If the new LaTeX will not work with all previous LaTeX applications, it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>should be called something else, not "LaTeX". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >All I can tell you about the new LaTeX is that the changes will >be dramatic. I personally am looking towards SGML as the text >formatting language for the 90s and have despaired somewhat of >LaTeX ever being really "fixed". SGML is *not* a text formatting language. It requires some underlying language (like TeX) to actually turn the SGML code into a printed document. SGML simply specifies the logical structure of the document, not how it should look. >To take care of some of the more >critical problems of LaTeX (top matter specification or page >layout, for example) dramatic changes will need to be made that >WILL introduce incompatibilities. There's nothing else for it. >Trying to remain backwards compatible with style files and >options would seriously cripple the effort. I'm having a hard >enough time convincing Frank and Rainer to remain >backwards-compatible with user input files. That's fine -- I understand completely. LaTeX is a monster. So create a completely new rewritten and incompatible markup language. Then call it FR-TeX or something. DON'T CALL IT LATEX!!! --Pat (wilcox@cis.ohio-state.edu)