Re: getting out of LaTeX


Tak To wrote:
Lee Sau Dan wrote:

"Tak" == Tak To <takto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:


Peter> AND HIS PROPOSED SOLUTION WAS TO HAVE THE SECRETARY RETYPE
Peter> ALL OF THE 276 EXAMPLES IN SOME OTHER WAY THAT WOULDN'T
Peter> HAVE BREAKS WITHIN THEM. I SAID NEVER MIND, I CAN DELETE
Peter> THE PARAGRAPH BREAKS MANUALLY.
>> Something that can be easily accomplished by a <100 line shell
>> script on TEXT files (LaTeX manuscripts are just text files
>> with markups).

Tak> I doubt it. A general Tex/LaTex parser in <100 line of shell
Tak> script??

I mean getting rid of the so called double-paragraph breaks (actually
newlines) in *text* files. A few lines of Perl can do it.

Are you assuming that "double paragraph break" in the _output_
must appear in a certain form in the _input_? For all we know,
the original LaTex document author might be using zillions of
different macros to generate double-paragraph breaks in different
circumstances. How can a few lines of Perl handle that?

It is precisely Tex's flexibility that makes Tex the only
tool that can handle Tex source.

And that's supposed to be an _advantage_?

It's a very clever marketing device. If Sony was the only manufacturer
of Beta-format blank cassettes, then there was a reason for it to
continue to promote the Beta format. George Eastman didn't make money
selling cameras, but selling film.

Oh, wait -- they don't _sell_ TeX, do they? Then what's the point of
making it incompatible with what most of the world's typists, and
cosumers of typing, use?

.

Quantcast