Re: [PATCH] Document git-runstatus
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 20, 2006, 08:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ejrntd$kj$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061120071529.GF3315@always.joy.eth.net>
Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:13:08PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: >> BTW, I've finally found a fine example of situation parallel to Git: >> TeX! There are the core TeX commands (plumbing) and plain TeX (basic >> porcelain) on top of that as well as a bunch of other macro sets (other >> porcelains). Now I need to dig out The TeXbook from wherever I've put it >> to see how did Knuth deal with it, documentation-wise. > > Gahh! Please don't use TeX as an example. As far as I know, TeX doesn't > offer lexical scope.
It offers grouping.
> Hence, action-at-a-distance is commonplace which > makes program execution extremely difficult for mere mortals to > predict. I am constantly amazed at popularity of TeX, in spite of its > grave deficiencies. Perhaps there isn't a good alternative yet.
TeX (even plain TeX) is like assembler of programming languages. One does usually use one of the TeX macros sets, like LaTeX, ConTeXt or texinfo.
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git