On 28/02/2025 11:24, Richard Heathfield wrote:Quite. Have you ever given up entirely and settled for a re-wording? That's my t-shirt.On 28/02/2025 09:22, David Brown wrote:LaTeX is great when it's all going well, but sometimes macros can get pretty hairy - I've written more than my share of unreadable macro code. There's also the risk that you spend so much time examining the microtyping and ligature generation at 1600% zoom on the pdf reader, that you don't have time to write the documents!On 27/02/2025 22:24, Keith Thompson wrote:>Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:>On 27/02/2025 12:56, Ar Rakin wrote:>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:>
>// isn't devoid of quirks (this is still C after all), for example:Interesting. Isn't this considered a compiler bug?
>
fopen(file,"rb"); // open file in \windows\system32\
fread(...);
>
Here, the // line continues onto the next, so that the fread is
commented out. But they are fewer.
No. Line splicing occurs in Translation Phase 2. Comment removal
doesn't happen until Translation Phase3. If a compiler /didn't/ splice
those lines, /that/ would be a bug.
<OT>Long time no see. Welcome back!</OT>
>
As long as it's not "Long time no C" :-)
I'm afraid it is. Nowadays I spend most of my time arguing with \LaTeX, although when I do cut code it is in C (and that's proper C, of course, not this newfangled gibberish).
>
Still, LaTeX (or LuaLaTeX, as I use these days) is better than anything else I know of.One of its best features is *not* allowing footnotes to have footnotes. This feature has saved not only many hours but quite possibly my eyesight.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 20 May 26 |  … |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.