Bug#63797: dvips produces bad postcript
>>>>> "Atsuhito" == Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@nsx.pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> writes:
Atsuhito> and generally this kind of sentence "whatever is in its
Atsuhito> scope (\TeX\ group)" is an important signal that it is
Atsuhito> needed or at least it is safe to use grouping for the
Atsuhito> command.
I do not understand why you have closed the bug. It is still a bug!
If it is still a bug, it should remain open! Even if a work around
exists, it is still a bug!
This type of thing has been discussed before in debian-devel, and the
general feeling was that bugs should be closed unless properly
fixed. It was considered that a bug should remain open even if it is
too hard to fix (in which case you *could* downgrade it to wishlist).
You say "it is safe to use grouping for the command". However nowhere
in the documentation does it say "grouping is needed". If that really
was the case, there would be no need the \overlay command, as
\begin{overlay}{n}...\end{overlay} could be used[1] instead.
Compare with the commands like \textbf, \textit, etc. None of these
commands require grouping, so why should[2] \overlay?
If it really is some stupid limitation of TeX or LaTeX that grouping
must be used in a nonstandard way, then the documentation should be
changed to document this.
I apologise for not replying to your previous message sooner, I was
mistakenly under the impression that you agreed with what I was
saying, and that no response was required.
I have to prepare for an overseas conference right now, so may not be
able to reply to any future posts for a while.
Thanks for maintaining tetex.
Note:
[1] I might be mistaken about this, I haven't tested it. I thought
this was documented in the main documentation, however it is in the
FAQ.
[2] Perhaps this is a problem that needs to be fixed by the upstream
maintainer, however, it was June 2000 when the author stated he was
working on a new version, and still no sign of any release :-(
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Reply to: