dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) (09/03/90)
Greetings. We're in the process of installing TeX 3.0, and in the process I thought I'd update our version of LaTeX and also actually produce a Local Guide to LaTeX for our system. (You remember the Local Guide -- it's that usually mythical document referred to in the LaTeX manual.) By updating our version of LaTeX, I mostly mean grabbing Mittlebach and Schopf's code from ymir.claremont.edu and making it available on our system. This also means replacing LaTeX's font selection mechanism by the M&S scheme. However, before I actually turn this whole system loose on the local users, I have a few questions. 1. I have before me an article entitled "Towards LaTeX 2.10," by M&S, that appeared in in the November 1989 issue of TUGboat, in which they talk about a few of the changes they are making. First of all, has LaTeX 2.10 been dumped in favor of LaTeX 3.0? (I suspect so, since it seems from other articles I've seen on the net, and from some of the code I've seen, that the revision of LaTeX has turned into a major re-implementation of LaTeX.) Second, have Mittlebach and Schoepf released any more details of how extensive their revision will be? I've seen nothing since an article Dan Hosek posted to this group on July 6, 1990, which didn't have much information except that there would be major changes in the output routine and unspecified changes in the List environment, front matter and section heading mechanisms. Finally, does anyone have any idea when the new LaTeX will be out? 2. What problems can I expect with the version of LaTeX I've described above? I.e., LaTeX 2.09 (version of 7 Dec 1989), running under TeX 3.0 (with Mittelbach's modified lplain.tex from ymir), and with Mittlebach's font selection code installed? What is likely to change enough that the users will notice and come after me with sharp implements? 3. The local guide includes the file addendum.tex, which contains a list of errata and additions to the LaTeX manual. The addendum.tex I have is dated 31 October 1989. Is there a more recent errata list available anywhere? Thanks in advance for your answers. I'd also appreciate any other hints anyone would like to give. Cheers, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David M. Jones |"I've just come across a fascinat- ARPANET: dmjones@athena.mit.edu | ing piece in the Times. Concerns UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!dmjones | the effects of lack of sleep USmail: 3 Ames Street; Cambridge, MA 02139 | among the marginally sane." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/03/90)
In article <1990Sep3.010417.21701@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes... >Greetings. We're in the process of installing TeX 3.0, and in the >process I thought I'd update our version of LaTeX and also actually >produce a Local Guide to LaTeX for our system. (You remember the >Local Guide -- it's that usually mythical document referred to in the >LaTeX manual.) Good man. If only every site had someone doing that rather necessary piece of work... >By updating our version of LaTeX, I mostly mean grabbing Mittlebach >and Schopf's code from ymir.claremont.edu and making it available on >our system. Be sure that you get the updated lplain.tex and splain.tex that have been modified for TeX 3.0--otherwise, you'll have users pounding on your door asking why LaTeX just hyphenated "all" (although it doesn't appear to be willing to hyphenate "God", at least). >This also means replacing LaTeX's font selection >mechanism by the M&S scheme. However, before I actually turn this >whole system loose on the local users, I have a few questions. >1. I have before me an article entitled "Towards LaTeX 2.10," by M&S, >that appeared in in the November 1989 issue of TUGboat, in which they >talk about a few of the changes they are making. First of all, has >LaTeX 2.10 been dumped in favor of LaTeX 3.0? (I suspect so, since it >seems from other articles I've seen on the net, and from some of the >code I've seen, that the revision of LaTeX has turned into a major >re-implementation of LaTeX.) Second, have Mittlebach and Schoepf >released any more details of how extensive their revision will be? >I've seen nothing since an article Dan Hosek posted to this group on >July 6, 1990, which didn't have much information except that there >would be major changes in the output routine and unspecified changes >in the List environment, front matter and section heading mechanisms. >Finally, does anyone have any idea when the new LaTeX will be out? That's Don. As in "Duck". There is not much news on the new LaTeX front since July 6. My suggestion is that you document your LaTeX code as thoroughly as possible and hope for the best. Oh, and don't hold your breath. >2. What problems can I expect with the version of LaTeX I've described >above? I.e., LaTeX 2.09 (version of 7 Dec 1989), running under TeX >3.0 (with Mittelbach's modified lplain.tex from ymir), and with >Mittlebach's font selection code installed? What is likely to change >enough that the users will notice and come after me with sharp >implements? Well, for safety's sake, I would recommend that you configure your system with oldlfont.sty rather than newlfont.sty; this configuration seems to give a decent enough golden mean between the old way of doing things and the new. The two biggest gotchas are [1] letter.sty won't work. The local solution here, since our TeX tree is also a distribution point was to configure paths so that a file letter.sty which inputs the original letter.sty and then makes the necessary changes is found before the original, non-functioning letter.sty. By renaming the old letter.sty to, say, oldletter.sty, the path trickery is not necessary. The changes I made are in the file [anonymous.tex.inputs.local]letter.sty on ymir.claremont.edu. [2] The common doublespace.sty doesn't work. I have a version on ymir.claremont.edu in [anonymous.tex.inputs.latex-contrib]doublespace.sty which works for both font selection schemes (the original is in [anonymous.tex.inputs.latex-contrib.obsolete]doublespace.sty). I'm currently experimenting with better ways of double spacing for my generic thesis macro, but that approach will require the changes being applied in the style file itself, which is OK, since that's exactly the way it should be. >3. The local guide includes the file addendum.tex, which contains a >list of errata and additions to the LaTeX manual. The addendum.tex I >have is dated 31 October 1989. Is there a more recent errata list >available anywhere? Nope. That's the most recent version. Remember, that's only changes to the manual, so the date on it won't necessarily correspond to the changes to latex.tex. -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
tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) (09/05/90)
In <8256@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) writes: >Well, for safety's sake, I would recommend that you configure >your system with oldlfont.sty rather than newlfont.sty; this >configuration seems to give a decent enough golden mean between >the old way of doing things and the new. Wait a moment! How many versions of LaTeX are there going to be? Isn't the whole point of LaTeX that there is just one version, and anyone can send a LaTeX file anywhere and get it printed. Are we going back to the Tower of Babel before LaTeX when every TeXpert had his own package of macros and output routines, and you had to spend hours working out what the hell they meant, and why there was a page with just one letter on it. Personally, I find LaTeX perfectly adequate as it is. If a new official version comes along I'll instal it, as a matter of principle, but I won't get up early to try it out. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) (09/06/90)
In article <1990Sep3.010417.21701@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, dmjones@theory (David M. Jones) writes: | |By updating our version of LaTeX, I mostly mean grabbing Mittlebach |and Schopf's code from ymir.claremont.edu and making it available on |our system. This also means replacing LaTeX's font selection |mechanism by the M&S scheme. However, before I actually turn this |whole system loose on the local users, I have a few questions. | |1. I have before me an article entitled "Towards LaTeX 2.10," by M&S, |that appeared in in the November 1989 issue of TUGboat, in which they |talk about a few of the changes they are making. First of all, has |LaTeX 2.10 been dumped in favor of LaTeX 3.0? Apparently. I heard a presentation by Frank Mittelbach last week and there was no mention of 2.10 |re-implementation of LaTeX.) Second, have Mittlebach and Schoepf |released any more details of how extensive their revision will be? They will try to keep it as much compatible as is possible. That is at the user level. There will be a new style-designer interface (more things customizable, and better documented). The new array and theorem styles will be part of LaTeX; the notion of fragile commands will disappear. Environments will get attributes, which is an extension of the current optional arguments. Better float handling. Better support for mathematics (like the amstex option). International language support. User definable hooks in various places. More elaborate front matter. and so on. |2. What problems can I expect with the version of LaTeX I've described |above? I.e., LaTeX 2.09 (version of 7 Dec 1989), running under TeX |3.0 (with Mittelbach's modified lplain.tex from ymir), and with |Mittlebach's font selection code installed? What is likely to change |enough that the users will notice and come after me with sharp |implements? My experiences: A number of style files (or users themselves) use things like \tensl, which are not defined in the new font selection scheme. The new scheme does not work with old LASY font files. You have to get the new ones. (the symbols like \unlhd are in the new fonts, whereas in the old LaTeX they were built from other symbols). Selecting the new font selection mechanism (i.e. newlfonts.sty as default) may surprise some users. On the other hand selecting oldlfonts.sty as default (as I did) will sometimes give problems with exhausted math families. In article <8256@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, dhosek@hmcvax (Hosek, Donald A.) writes: | |The two biggest gotchas are [1] letter.sty won't work. The local |solution here, since our TeX tree is also a distribution point |was to configure paths so that a file letter.sty which inputs the |original letter.sty and then makes the necessary changes is found |before the original, non-functioning letter.sty. By renaming the |old letter.sty to, say, oldletter.sty, the path trickery is not |necessary. The changes I made are in the file |[anonymous.tex.inputs.local]letter.sty on ymir.claremont.edu. I made a change that works with both versions: *** letter.sty.~1~ Tue Mar 14 17:54:32 1989 --- letter.sty Tue May 15 12:53:03 1990 *************** *** 212,220 **** --- 212,224 ---- \begingroup\@floatplacement\@dblfloatplacement\endgroup \if@filesw \immediate\openout\@mainaux=\jobname.aux \immediate\write\@mainaux{\string\startlabels\string\@startlabels}\fi + \csname process@table\endcsname \def\do##1{\let ##1\@notprerr} \@preamblecmds \let\do\noexpand + \ifx\undefined\selectfont\else + \gdef\xpt{\family{cmr}\series{m}\shape{n}\size{10}{12pt}\selectfont} + \fi \@normalsize\everypar{}} \def\enddocument{\@checkend{document}\newpage\begingroup \if@filesw \immediate\closeout\@mainaux -- Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/07/90)
In article <3746@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>, piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes... >In article <1990Sep3.010417.21701@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, dmjones@theory (David M. Jones) writes: > |2. What problems can I expect with the version of LaTeX I've described > |above? >The new scheme does not work with old LASY font files. You have to get the >new ones. (the symbols like \unlhd are in the new fonts, whereas in the old >LaTeX they were built from other symbols). Huh? Umm, what lasy font files are you using that don't work with the new font selection stuff? Actually, this plus some other symptoms you described seemed to indicate that you might have been using an older version of the fontsel macros (check fontsel.readme in [anonymous.tex.inputs.latex-mainz] on ymir.claremont.edu for release dates). I have been toying with making a hybrid of oldlfont.sty that uses AMS fonts, but not until I have boldface versions. -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