From: John G. <jm...@gm...> - 2007-11-03 22:12:39
|
rst2latex seems to work pretty well for me. I have a couple general questions though: 1. Is rst2newlatex the 2nd iteration of rst2latex? Is the intent to replace the original rst2latex? 2. Why rst2newlatex instead of rst2tex? That is, if you're using LaTeX, but not taking advantage of all its predefined commands (instead just using it for raw formatting), why not just use Plain TeX instead and cut out the extra layer? Seems like this is exactly what Plain TeX was meant for. |
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2007-11-04 00:38:51
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, John Gabriele apparently wrote: > 1. Is rst2newlatex the 2nd iteration of rst2latex? Is the > intent to replace the original rst2latex? This is just user-to-user feedback. My understand is that rst2latex will persist. I hope so: for various reasons, it fits my needs much better than rst2newlatex. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
From: John G. <jm...@gm...> - 2007-11-05 08:31:59
|
On 11/3/07, John Gabriele <jm...@gm...> wrote: > > 2. Why rst2newlatex instead of rst2tex? That is, if you're using > LaTeX, but not taking advantage of all its predefined commands > (instead just using it for raw formatting), why not just use Plain TeX > instead and cut out the extra layer? Seems like this is exactly what > Plain TeX was meant for. A portion of a post by Felix W. in October 2005 seems to answer my question: | > Out of curiosity, I wonder if the underlying goal is really | > a TeX writer rather than a LaTeX writer. | | No. I considered limiting myself to pure TeX (to make the output usable | in other TeX-based systems), but I've found that, besides my own lack of | knowledge about pure TeX, we actually need a lot of the functionality of | LaTeX, technically and in terms of do-the-right-thing typesetting | knowledge. I'm guessing he means Plain TeX there where he writes "pure TeX". ---John |