TeXk is there since it is a modified TeX and therefore (i guess) it had to be given a different name. Does a similar formal or other reason exist for pdfTeXk vs. pdfTeX? If not, we could change all "pdfTeXk" containing messages to "pdfTeX", as done already with the "e". The various "k" features, like "%&-line parsing enabled." are anyway individually flagged at program start. Regards, Hartmut
On 2006-02-16 19:52:52 +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote:
TeXk is there since it is a modified TeX and therefore (i guess) it had to be given a different name.
Does a similar formal or other reason exist for pdfTeXk vs. pdfTeX?
At least the comments @x [1] m.2 l.188 - Web2C: extensions imply we're not pdfeTeX @x [1] m.2 l.188 - Web2C: extensions imply we're not pdfTeX don't make sense to me anymore. Olaf? Best Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de
Martin Schröder writes:
On 2006-02-16 19:52:52 +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote:
TeXk is there since it is a modified TeX and therefore (i guess) it had to be given a different name.
Does a similar formal or other reason exist for pdfTeXk vs. pdfTeX?
At least the comments
@x [1] m.2 l.188 - Web2C: extensions imply we're not pdfeTeX @x [1] m.2 l.188 - Web2C: extensions imply we're not pdfTeX
don't make sense to me anymore.
Olaf?
It was put in for consistency with the other flavours; I don't particularly care one way or the other. -- Olaf Weber (This space left blank for technical reasons.)
participants (3)
-
Hartmut Henkel -
Martin Schröder -
Olaf Weber