Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think here is the difference between our goals. > > Our community has the following model of evolution. Any change in the > language or API are allowed as long as the full backward compatibility > is preserved. By the full backward compatibility I mean the following: > > Any legacy document will always either produce > exactly same output on all systems or trigger an > error message requesting installation (P) > of additional components (and will compile after > these components are installed) OR the system is not > called LaTeX. > > In our language this requirement is NOT as big burden as in other > languages because of the properties of the language.
See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer term. Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that *anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long* term. Consider if every package did what you say. Then in a few centuries, all the names are taken. Do we want that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
