Reinhard Kotucha <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think it's worthwhile to invest any time into such stupid > logos. \TeX is not very problematic, but \LaTeX is a pain if typeset > with anything else but Computer Modern. > > LuaTeX combines Lua and TeX, Lua has its own logo and it's wrong to > create a new one. Thus, the only reasonable solution is: > > \def\LuaTeX{Lua\TeX} > \def\LuaLaTeX{Lua\LaTeX} > > Fine-tuning the logos dosn't make any sense at all unless they all > depend on a particular font. > > I also think that Knuth introduced a few bad habits. Using a logo in > continuous text is pure nonsense. Suppose you are writing a book about > Lua. Would you replace every occurrence of the word "Lua" by the Lua > logo?
which is why i just don't -- i usually don't even bother with silly capitalisation except in the faq. > What bothers me all the time is that every book about TeX/LaTeX wastes > a whole page in order to explain how to pronounce the word "TeX" properly. > A single sentence would suffice: "Knuth pronounces it 'Tek'". not quite. and i believe those of us with a penchant for this sort of thing should be allowed to discuss the nuances of how various people pronounce the word. (i sometimes wonder if i would have got on better in the world if i had stayed with linguistics, my first job having been as a programmer in that area.) > Sorry, I regard TeX as a program, not as a religion. there are probably those who would consider that heresy. ;-) robin
