Feedback below...
Le 02/02/2016 00:39, Karl Berry a écrit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> So, I don't mind if the paragraph about xspace is removed altogether
> from the manual.
>
> I replaced the details about it with a mere mention that it exists.
I saw this, and I rephrased it (hopefully you won't mind) because it was
said something like « xspace and some indidivual commands can alter the
rule », while, contrary to xspace, these individual commands, as such,
are not intended to alter the rule, they just do not follow the rule
because of other reasons (historical and so on), but their purpose is
other. So IMHO it was a bit misleading, and I rephrased as « Some
commands, notably those defined with package xspace, do not follow the
rule ».
>
> Only control words gobble the following spaces, control symbols
>
> Yes, I am well aware of this :). I have been trying to avoid using
> those terms, though not for any overriding reason.
> I was just being lazy in saying "control sequence".
I also often do so (*°-°*).
> I changed it to "alphabetic control sequence", which is at least
> somewhat more correct,
I am curious in knowing what your psychanalyst says about your aversion
against the phrase « control word », surely it has to do with your
childhood :-P :-D
Please note that Google finds 7 hits for
"alphabetic control sequence"
and 8710 hits for
"control word" TeX
> and took out the "command".
>
> There is plenty more to be done in this area, and all others.
As far as space gobbling is concerned, I think that there must be
somewhere some description of the 4 processors chain: input | expansion
| execution | layout.
> In addition to things you mention, I think it \SPACE and \@ should be
> described (fully) in separate nodes, not glommed together. (Reference
> manual vs. user manual again.)
>
> Beyond that, I think it would be actually be a better use of time to add
> more of the missing control sequences from latex2e to the manual than
> anything else.
Well... to me in particular this is lower priority than completing the
translation...
>
> Out of time for anything more today though ... -k
>
VBR,
Vincent
