8 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eli, you're wrong. When people initially request such things they
> don't think of all possible bad scenarios. Let them play with it.
> Most of the time, it may just work and it's what they need.
Sure -- given that the ability to get the parts separately is already
in, my post was mostly intended as a friendly advice to people who may
consider trying to actually make sense out of these kind of latex
hacks... I'm certainly not suggesting undoing the new feature.
> Eli, you're also correct. In principle, the latex linker [...]
"Linker" should have been quoted... But more seriously, the
combination of a single global scope, an ability to change the
language at the lowest syntactic levels (= the character level), and
an impenetrable lazy-like langugae that works via textual expansions
can easily lead to severe hair loss. (Good that it's free of bugs
though!)
[Actually there's a potentially interesting point: latex is slapping
enough of these changes on tex that they're essentially two
incompatible languages, with only a small set of trivial programs that
can be used on both sides. Now, IIUC, Rails is doing something
similar with the level on monkeypatching it layers on Ruby -- maybe
it's the same kind of problem?]
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
