[tex-implementors] Re: [tex-live] LM as the default outline font?

Philip TAYLOR P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Tue Mar 29 20:04:18 CEST 2005

Gavin McCullagh wrote:


> I think it would be unlikely that both would exist.  However I would assert
> that V0.11.0 > V0.1 and V0.11.0 > V0.1.1 > V0.1.0

Yes, I would agree with that.

> The point of the . as delimiter is that each number is not a real but an
> integer.

True if there are two or more periods; uncertain/ambiguous
if there is only one.

> No, he's using an integer delimited with dots.  

Is he ?  Are you sure ?  (This is not a rhetorical question).

> Human beings do not count:
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,991,992

No, but they /do/ count (omitting an infinite
number of steps)



> His numbering scheme is consistent with both scenarios.  That doesn't make
> either of the above wrong.

>>>Even LaTeX does this with its sectioning commands.
>>Yes, with embedded period : as I said above, I have no problem with
>>such a numbering scheme.
> No without.
No, with :-)  LaTeX will happily generate 0.1.1, 0.1.2 and so on,
at the right level of (sub-)sectioning.

The real point (and this is only just becoming clear to me)
is that 0.982 /is/ ambiguous : it could be a real, it could
be a period-delimted pair of integers.  My initial
interpretation (on which all previous argument was based)
is that Staszek et al were treating it as real.  If they
are treating it as period-delimited integers, let them
say so now :-)

** Phil.

More information about the tex-live mailing list