TeX 1995 July/TeX CD-ROM July 1995 (Disc 1)(Walnut Creek)(1995).ISO/tex-k/tex-k-archive.past/tex-k-archive.gz/tex-k-archive/[e-mail]_Wed Jun 15 04:50:17 1994.msg

Internet Message Format | 1994-10-11 | 2KB

Received: from uluru.Stanford.EDU by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA18781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[e-mail]>); Wed, 15 Jun 1994 14:47:28 -0400
Received: by uluru.Stanford.EDU (4.1/inc-1.0)
    id AA21881; Wed, 15 Jun 94 11:50:17 PDT
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 11:50:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Interrante)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]> ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: latex2e vs. latex209 inputs

> I also want to solicit people's opinions on (more or less) how long
> they think latex209 is going to stick around. Right now, the only
> way (so far as I know) to get the different path definitions above
> for the different versions of latex is to use a script, which is
> annoying. An alternative would be to allow syntax something like:

[ environment variables deleted ]

I would like to second what Frank Jansen suggested.  I like the idea
of each latex command reading a different runtime configuration file
based on the command's name.  The command `latex' could read the file
config.latex if it exists, while the command `latex209' could read the
file config.latex209 if it exists.  Given that Karl is adding runtime
configuration files to the next version of kpathsea, it shouldn't be
very hard to automate this so that each program which uses kpathsea
will automatically read such a configuration file if it exists.  Then
it would be very easy to define a different TEXINPUTS directory in
config.latex209 so that latex209 won't try to read the latex2e input
files and vice-versa.

        John