Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer

[Ralf Hemmecke]

Hi Michel,

address@hidden wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2005 at 14:42, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> > Just one quick comment... there are several places where you use TeX
> > syntax. I'd prefer to promote LaTeX (it's \newpage instead of \eject).
> > In fact I don't like to see \eject at all.

> This is incorrect. \eject is a valid LaTeX command, for all versions of LaTeX.
> It is defined in lplain.tex (for LaTeX 2.09) and in latex.ltx (for LaTeX2e).
> \newpage is different from \eject, it is not a substitute to it. So, if Tim uses
>  \eject and it gives the result he wants, then he is correct.

OK, I was incorrect with \eject. It is in latex.ltx and, therefore a 
LaTeX command.

But I still don't like to see it in a LaTeX document, especially not in 
places like

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{src/scripts/tex/axiom}
\begin{document}
\title{The Top Level Makefile}
\author{Timothy Daly}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\end{abstract}
\eject
\tableofcontents
\eject
\section{General Makefile Structure}

If one really likes to have the output like that then the command 
"\tableofcontent" and/or the environment "abstract" should be redefined 
via a style file. Even if that costs a little more effort in writing 
those styles, it separates style from contents. That was the point I 
wanted to make.

> > \begin{thebibliography}{99}
> > \bibitem{1} nothing
> > \end{thebibliography}
> >
> > It is old technology.
>
> What do you mean by "old technology" ? These are also valid LaTeX commands,
> in all versions of LaTeX

Of course, you are correct, but it is much better to use BibTeX. There 
is simply more structure in a BibTeX file than in a usual 
"thebibliography" environment.

If you rather like to maintain such environments instead of a BibTeX 
file, fine with me, but I wouldn't like to do this.

Ralf