[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rethinking @def*
From: |
pertusus |
Subject: |
Re: rethinking @def* |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:20:13 +0200 |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:31:27AM +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> ... I consider this a bad idea. Whatever you are going to change, it
> will be backward incompatible, causing a lot of grief.
Another reason for changing the formatting is that there is a new output
format being implemented, to LaTeX. Should the 'flawed' semantics be
used for that new output format too, mimicking TeX output even when it
does not make sense? Or should the new output be more in line with
something more consistent? None of those options seem appealing to me.
--
Pat
- Re: rethinking @def*, (continued)
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/29
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/29
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/26
Re: rethinking @def*,
pertusus <=
- Re: rethinking @def*, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Werner LEMBERG, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, pertusus, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, Werner LEMBERG, 2022/07/26
- Re: rethinking @def*, pertusus, 2022/07/27
Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/07/26