[tex-live] Re: Re: aleph for TL

Giuseppe Bilotta bilotta78 at hotpop.com
Wed Apr 14 17:46:31 CEST 2004


Hans Hagen wrote:
> At 15:33 13/04/2004, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> >Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > At 17:21 27/03/2004, Thomas Esser wrote:
> > > > > Ps. I hope that's nothing wrong that lambda uses now aleph engine
> > > > > instead of omega.
> > > >
> > > >The LaTeX team has requested to use e-TeX aware engines for LaTeX, so
> > > >I think this is politically correct until Omega officially supports the
> > > >e-TeX primitives.
> > >
> > > ... and is stable enough to be of use for more than a few pages; i don't
> > > know what lambda is supposed to to but i assume that it's not depending on
> > > new (undocumented) features in omega > 1.15, so i think that aleph is a
> > > good choice here; also, i expect more testing by and feedback from that
> > > branch of omega
> >
> >The only thing that can break compilation is usage of omega.sty (the
> >omega package for latex/lambda), since it makes use of the
> >\nextfakemath primitive which is defined in Omega 1.23 but not in
> >Omega 1.15 or Aleph.
> 
> so, why not add that primitive and equal it to \relax?

Because it can be done at the input file level (\let\nextfakemath
\relax) :) I'd rather implement it, but I was wondering if it was 
really the case. After all, I have the strong impression that the 
result can be robustly achieved by macros, even though I haven't 
actually tried.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
                  (Roger Waters)



More information about the tex-live mailing list