Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
> From: Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
> I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
> Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> something like
> will actually be typeset with a 13-point font (and similarly for the
> other standard classes). Note that I have deliberately selected an
[the long saga is omitted]
> That sends me messing with the class-loading code in the kernel. I do
> not protest about having to call my kernel something else than
> latex.ltx even if I didn't change its functional contents, and nothing
> references the kernel by name anyway, so the renaming cascade stops
> here - unless I've overlooked some other filename interaction.
You do not need to this. A simple solution is to change in your
changed kernel the lines:
to the lines
and create 13pt.clo with the appropriate contents.
> Personally I am megalomanic enough to believe I have memoized
> sufficiently large parts of The TeXbook to be able to make an attempt,
> and perhaps even have it work after a few days of debugging. But I
> certainly don't believe that everyone capable of changing a few
> numbers in the .clo file will be able to do it. So the morale I'm
> aiming at is that the renaming rule will prevent some people from
> doing modifications that they would otherwise be technically competent
> to do.
I do not think that "freedom of modification" should mean "ease of
modification by people with superficial knowledge of the
language". The task of creating non-quite-LaTeX *is* difficult in any
real situation. The requirement that it must be easily done by people
who do not know TeX seems excessive to me.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of television."
-- The New Mighty Mouse
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org