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

Gavin McCullagh gavin at celt.dias.ie
Tue Mar 29 20:37:00 CEST 2005


On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

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

No but what has been said is consistent with that.

> >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)
>   0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,0.91,0.92,0.93,0.94,0.95,0.96,0.97,0.98,0.99,0.991,0.992

What exactly have you ever seen counted like this?  People do not count in
real numbers.  They count in integers.

> >>>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.

As long as each level has only one digit the entire point is moot.  Given
that this is the TeX Live list it seems the best thing to do is point you
to The TeX Book to see what Knuth does.  Picking an example at random,
chapter 14's exercises are numbered:

14.1, 14.2, ......., 14.9, 14.10, 14.11. etc

If you feel this is ambiguous perhaps you should file a bug and see what
response you get.

> 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.  

The convention in versioning is that it is the latter.  1.10 is the tenth
subversion of version one.  It does not mean we are one tenth of the way to
version two.


More information about the tex-live mailing list