When I returned from vacation 2 days ago I was gratified to see quite a number of postings related to PMX...that's evidence that the program is getting some use. I'll continue to try to help people with suggestions and clarifications, and with bug fixes and updates to the extent my time permits. But I have to be honest and say that I think the pace of my responses to matters requiring FORTRAN coding will become even slower in the near future. The main reason is that I will be spending more of my time *using* PMX to do some actual publishing. I can see a steady stream of typesetting projects ahead which at the moment I feel more strongly motivated to pursue than the ones involved with modifying the code. Both pursuits are very time-consuming and I can't do full justice to both at the same rate I've tended to PMX coding in the past. I find that bug-finding and coding even the simplest kinds of additions takes an inordinate amount of time, partly because of my own programming ineptitude, and partly due to the sheer size of the code (over 13000 lines, every one written by yours truly). I hope this does not discourage people from continuing to report bugs and deficiencies. I'll keep adding them to the "to-do" list, reprioritizing it based on ease of programming and on my own functional requirements, suggesting ways around the bugs, and tending to the coding matters when I can. Fortunately, PMX supports a robust range of in-line TeX options, enough so that virtually any problem can be handled one way or another with in-line TeX. What would really be nice would be if someone out there with some experience programming in FORTRAN (or a desire to pick it up) would step forward and volunteer to learn about PMX's internal structure and take over some of the programming and debugging. --Don Simons
