Re: second proposal for inter-word spaces

[Blake McBride]

At 12:44 PM 3/11/96 MET, address@hidden wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 12:44:10 +1000, address@hidden (Jeff Kingston) said:
>
>Jeff> I've come to believe that introducing clever new ways to solve this
>Jeff> problem is probably not a good idea, for the following reasons:
>
>Jeff> (1) We are in danger of creating a Tower of Babel here, with everyone
>Jeff> using slightly different settings;
>     
>Jeff>      lout @Space Treat white space the way Lout does now
>
>Jeff>      troff @Space Treat white space the way troff does
>
>Jeff>      tex @Space Treat white space the way TeX does
>
>It seems to me that this is tantemount to doing precisely what was to be
>avoided; creating a tower of babel.  


I disagree with you and agree with Jeff.  Personally, I think TeX got it
right from the start.  So having a TeX mode works perfectly for me.  Another
reason I like it is that once the feature has been implemented, we don't have
to go back and forth debating how the fine points should work because TeX has 
already
made the decisions for us.  If there is something which is unclear we just
run TeX and know the answer.  No debates!

Another good reason is that most people moving to Lout are from troff or TeX
(in my opinion).  They like Lout because of its higher level approach.
By having the modes named and equivalent to what they are already used to
there's no surprises.

--blade

--
Download complete C source to my Dynace Object Oriented
Extension to C and Windows Development System from:
http://www.edge.net/algorithms
Blake McBride (address@hidden)
Algorithms Corporation - 615-791-1636 - USA