Heiko Oberdiek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:07:51PM +0100, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: > > > Regarding namespaces: It's a good idea at first glance. But I don't > > think there is any need to be concerned about macro packages people > > write in the future. Macro writers have to read the specifications > > anyway. They have to read the TeXbook if they want to support Knuth's > > tex, they have to read the pdfTeX manual if they want to support > > pdftex, and they have to read the LuaTeX manual if they want to support > > Luatex. Same for e-TeX, XeTeX, Omega, and derivates. > > Another reason for prefixes. As package author I wouldn't want > to check all engines for name clashes. Also it's quite > difficult to check future name clashes, especially for user > land macro names.
i don't _want_ to check all engines, but _i_ (and heiko) could, in principle. > > Hans already explained why new primitives don't break old macro > > packages. So, where is the problem? > > Mixing old with new packages. and mixing well-established packages with new engines. *we* aren't going to be surprised when package foo "breaks" the new primitive \bar, but a steady proportion of texhax/comp.text.tex traffic covers just such name clashes (mostly between packages, but occasionally between package and engine). as has already been said, this is complicated by the state of authorship; the context community (seems, to me, to) keep in touch with each other, but latex package authors regularly disappear. of the large list of latex packages for which i don't have an author address, i've only *two* instructions to hand responsibility on to anyone who volunteers to take it. what do i do about packages whose author dies? (for mike downes, i mail barbara beeton; but i don't know who to ask in re. brian hamilton kelly's stuff -- we had to break the copyright to get his crossword stuff working with 2e.) robin
