tds 0.100

[David Carlisle]

>>>>> Paul Vojta writes:

> May I suggest the following diff:

> *** tds.tex	Mon Oct 16 13:34:23 1995
> --- tds.new	Mon Oct 16 15:02:40 1995
> ***************
> *** 1220,1228 ****
>   into different sections of the tree right at the top level).
  
>   If documents could portably specify a directory part in filenames (as in
> ! \path|\input latex2e/file.tex|), the entire \abbr{TDS} tree might look
> ! different, because then duplicate ``filenames'' would be restricted to
> ! the 8.3 lowest-common-denominator.  However, this is not currently practical.
  
>   \subsection{Macro Structure}
>   The \abbr{TWG} settled on the 
> --- 1220,1230 ----
>   into different sections of the tree right at the top level).
  
>   If documents could portably specify a directory part in filenames (as in
> ! \path|\input latex2e/file.tex|), restrictions on uniqueness of filenames
> ! could be relaxed considerably (with the cooperation of the macro packages),
> ! and the search path would not need to depend on the format.
> ! However, this is not currently practical, since no current {\TeX}
> ! implementation supports this.
  
>   \subsection{Macro Structure}
>   The \abbr{TWG} settled on the 

> In the current wording, it's not at all clear to me how the TDS tree might
> look different.

> --Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu


Sorry for coming to this a bit late, but I still do not really
understand this proposal, with either wording.

Is the intention that TeX supports \input latex/file.tex to mean to
find file.tex in some sub-directory recursively below latex for
instance  \input latex/graphics.sty finds latex/graphics/graphics.sty
If not, and  \input latex/file.tex  is supposed to mean that file.tex
is in a directory called latex, then the TDS would need completely
restructuring, not just relaxing a uniqueness restriction.

Furthermore, the particular example |\input latex2e/file.tex| is a bad
one as the TDS directory name for LaTeX is latex not latex2e, and the
primitive TeX \input syntax (without {}) is strongly discouraged in
LaTeX.

David