[tex-live] Ignoring portion of LaTeX code; the \par problem.

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard mpg at elzevir.fr
Mon Apr 5 21:25:55 CEST 2010


a few more hints:

- look for explanations about \long and the way TeX reads arguments before
processing them in your favourite book (the TeXbook is an obviously good choice,
"TeX by topic" too, and it's even free).

- if you're not sure whether something is a bug or a misunderstanding, first
assume that you didn't understand (especially if the software is TeX, which has
been stable for more than 20 years) and look for a confirmation in technical
forum (here, the texhax list and the Usenet group comp.text.tex are good choices)

- when a visibly knowledgeable and helpful contributor (it is clear from Robin's
signature that he is maintaining the TeX FAQ) replies, it is likely that what he
says makes sense.

We all make errors, what makes a difference is how we react when someone points
our errors out...


Michaël Cadilhac a écrit :
> Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>> Michaël Cadilhac <michael at cadilhac.name> wrote:
>>>   My goal today is to write a command that would include another TeX
>>> file, but not its document environment.  For instance, I would want to
>>> use it like:
>> why bother?  lots of people (who apparently understand tex better than
>> you) have done this in various different ways -- see:
>> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=multidoc 
> You seem to have failed to read my preceding email.  Maybe you should
> consider working on understanding basics of good communication -- see:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855  (Netiquette)
>> (and in general, take a look at such on-line resources before even
>> thinking of looking for an appropriate forum to ask -- hint: a forum for
>> discussing the mechanics of a distribution isn't such a thing.)
> Better hint, Robin, my post wasn't any try to get help on such matter,
> but to report an apparent bug.  Also, you may have had a look at the
> "Subject" field of my message, which usually relates pretty good with
> its contents: it mentions a problem with `\par', which you may have
> addressed if you had tried to answer my email instead of trying to get
> some potential newbie out.  Also, you may have found that my main point
> was that the *parsing* (as in "mechanics") of the TeX file failed me.
> You'd be kind enough not to answer again without having a look at my
> first message.

More information about the tex-live mailing list