Re: sugestion for Lout - token stack

[Oliver Bandel]

Hello,

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Jeff Kingston wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:01:22 +0100 (MET), Oliver Bandel wrote:
>   > 
>   > What do you mean? My dictionary does not contain the word
>   > "retrofit(ted)".
>   > 
> 
> Shoved in awkwardly later.
> 
>   > Do you think about using a different language for implementation
>   > of the new system?
>   > 
>   > Maybe Ocaml? => http://www.ocaml.org
> 
> I've designed my own language, it's quite similar to Ocaml.  But I
> want to be in control of the compiler, and I want generic functions,
> which Ocaml didn't have last time I looked.

Should have it?!


> 
>   > 
>   > Can you explain what you think about problems of Lout
>   > (and possibly other formatting systems) and what you
>   > want to do better?
> 
> I don't have time to do this in an email, so I've re-posted a paper
> I wrote six years ago (how time flies) when I first started thinking
> about replacing Lout.  It's called "The future of document formatting"
> and you can find it on my home page,
> 
>     http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~jeff

Oh, I read it some months ago, and I thought this was the paper
in which you explain the features of lout. But maybe I'm wrong.


> 
> It does not define a new language, it just goes through the requirements.
> 
>   > Will it include new ideas from other systems (what about
>   > ConTeXt?)?
> 
> What's ConTeXt?

It's a Program, that enhances TeX. It's similar to LaTeX in that
it is based on TeX, but it's different from LaTeX, because it's
easier for the user to change definitions (LaTeX is more "conservative").

All people using it are happy about it; I have not tried it, but
have seen some interesting examples of it.

ConTeXt is used to have a higher-level and easier interface to TeX,
so that it's not necessary to write TeX/LaTeX macros.

I think some things are easy in ConTeXt, but I think that the
big advantages of lout - easy doing of macro-layout - are
easier in lout (but I didn't tried ConTeXt until now).


IMHO it is the best strategy, to integrate both worlds: Lout AND TeX,
because each system has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

I sometimes used postscript directly, because I found it easier
than using Lout/(La)TeX for some things.

Normally I'm more interested in using high-level languages for
textprocessing and creating of graphics, but that I'm using
postscript directly has two reasons: I want to learn the language;
and I have/want to learn it, because I want to create special
documents. And when asking in the lout mailinglist as well as in the
(german) TeX-mailing list, people often say, it's better to use
postscript directly.
(In the TeX-mailinglist some people said: use PSTricks; but to use
special features, I have to learn postscript too, even when using
PSTricks...)

So, if there would be systems that can easily solve my problems,
I would use it.
Maybe I have to use different textprocessing-systems and use it together
with Postscript, as done more and more often the last weeks.

But I would prefer to use *one* *highlevel* system...
...maybe I have to write textprocessing directly in postscript?
Or I have to write my own textprocessing system, with the possibility
to add my special-tasks as modules, creating good postscript code?
(No, I do not want to write such a system, but maybe I have to?)

So I waonder, what lout (or how it will be called then) 
will be in three years...

Ciao,
   Oliver