summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/8_3/first.tex
blob: df127773b43def96a555346658ee9576dfa4dade (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
\chapter{First steps}
\section{A brief history}
\LaTeX\ can be thought of as the fusion of two
developments in computing software. One of these developments was
\TeX; the other was \Scribe\index{scribe@\protect{\Scribe}}. Both are embedded in
the academic world. Both came to fruition in the latter part of the
70's, and as such, preceded the introduction of personal
computers. They also parallel the rise of large scale database
systems, and the demise of traditional hand-set type.

\subsection{\TeX}
\TeX\ itself was developed as a typesetting tool by
Donald Knuth\index{Knuth} of Stanford University~\cite{DEK84}. Knuth wrote
the first version of \TeX\index{tex@\protect{\TeX}} in the late 1970s
\cite{DEK79}, primarily as a way of controlling the printed quality of his
multi-volume work \textsl{The Art of Computer Programming}~\cite{DEK68}. 

To some extent, and more particularly with the early
versions, \TeX\ tended to place some emphasis on the
arrangement of the marks on the paper. After all, Knuth
finishes~\cite{DEK84} with the exhortation: `\textsc{Go
Forth} {and create masterpieces of the publishing art!}'.  He was
clearly thinking in terms of marks on paper. Because of this
attention to this relatively low level of detail, \TeX\ is sometimes
described as a \emph{procedural} or \emph{typographic markup}\index{markup}
system.

\subsection{\Scribe}
\Scribe\index{scribe@\protect{\Scribe}} was
written by Brian Reid at Carnegie-Mellon~\cite{BR80}, and
described in his thesis in 1980. In essence, \Scribe\ ignored the
content of the document, concentrating on the
relationship of the parts: in a sense it imposed, or
revealed, the implicit inter-relationships present.
We may be prepared to acknowledge that a document is composed of
(say)
\begin{itemize}
\item front matter
\item main text
\item annexed (or back) matter 
\end{itemize}
and within each of these major divisions, we can identify
subdivisions. The front matter might comprise
\begin{itemize}
\item title page
\item author's dedication
\item table of contents
\item list of figures
\item foreword
\item preface
\item acknowledgements
\end{itemize}
and so on. Some of these elements may be optional. This
presents structure as very hierarchical, but it is
possible to construct arrangements which are not so
fiercely arranged, and share features with other, less
formal, types of organisation. 

One of the major points to make is that \Scribe\ was a
system of \emph{descriptive} or \emph{logical markup}\index{markup}: it
described the structure of the document. It made no comment about the
arrangement of the words on the page. In fact, there need
be no `page', in the sense of `paper' page. Changing the
characteristics of the `carrier medium' changed nothing
about the document structure. While it is possible to
disagree with extreme versions of this viewpoint \cite{MC96}, it
did offer a powerful and attractive way to separate documents
from the worries of formatting.

\subsection{\LaTeX}
Leslie Lamport~\cite{LL85} took the ideas of \Scribe\ and the
typesetting capabilities of \TeX\ and fused them into
\LaTeX, a piece of software where an author could include
an account of the structure\index{structure} together with the content --
the words. Lamport sought to devise a system where the
author need know nothing about the details of typesetting
-- justification, choice of typeface, page breaking,
ligatures, and so on. Merely by saying that the document
was a `book', or a `report', the text would be formatted
appropriately.


In contemporary jargon, \TeX\ is described as the \emph{formatting} or \emph{typesetting
engine} whose presence need never be revealed. The author
concentrates on the content, merely guiding the structure gently by
noting features like sections, subsections, figures, etc. To this
Lamport added or adapted tools to sweep up tables of contents, lists of
figures, cross referencing, bibliographic control and
indexing. Perhaps these \emph{value added} tools\index{tools} are the
features which still give \LaTeX\ the edge over almost any
other software of this type. 

That and the fact that it is
available, if not freely, certainly very cheaply. A great
deal of the work on \TeX\ and \LaTeX\ has been done
through the public domain. This does not mean it was done
for free: a great deal of money was spent, one way or
another, in perfecting these tools. Fortunately for the
rest of us, a lot of
it was `public' (i.e.~taxpayers') money, rather than `commercial'
money. Even the commercial versions of \TeX\ and \LaTeX\
are very cheap when compared to `comparable' commercial
alternatives. 

\LaTeX\ absorbed all \TeX's mathematical capability.
Since \LaTeX\ is written in \TeX\ (which itself has some
pretensions to being a programming language), anything
that is possible in \TeX\ can also be done in \LaTeX, so
we have lost no functionality. This is really only theoretically
true, since, as we may see, \TeX\ itself has some memory
limitations: once the \LaTeX\ functionality is loaded, there is
limited space left for other things. But this is an architectural
problem rather than a conceptual one.

One of Lamport's advantages was that he was able to work
with Knuth, as Knuth was developing the `final' version
of \TeX. Certain requirements which came to light with
the development of the early versions of \LaTeX\ were
incorporated into \TeX82, the version of \TeX\ which we all used
until Knuth \cite{DEK89} made some relatively small changes in 1989; this latter
change was a
relatively straightforward and painless upgrade which may even
have gone unnoticed by some.  Lamport is
quoted somewhere as saying that he could not have achieved what he
had done without the active cooperation of Knuth. This is not to
minimise Lamport's achievement, since
\LaTeX\ is a wholly remarkable piece of software. It has
defects, but to a large extent these turn out not to be
too limiting. Some of its problems are really problems
inherent in \TeX. But more of that later (perhaps).

\subsection{\LaTeXe}\index{latex!latex2e@\protect{\LaTeXe}}
Some other changes have to be documented. For a long period,
\LaTeX\ was also known as
\LaTeX\,2.09\index{latex!latex2.09@\protect{\LaTeX}\,2.09}. This actually
covered an incremental refinement where bug fixes were gradually incorporated
without changing the version number and was leading to uncertainty of what was
the `current' version of \LaTeX, and some divergence of what it actually
constituted. This was not altogether satisfactory. By 1990 there was the
beginning of a proposal to change \LaTeX\ substantially \cite{FM90}, for a
variety of  sound reasons. Ultimately this gelled into a proposal for a new
version  to be called \LaTeX3\index{latex!latex3@\protect{\LaTeX}\,3}
\cite{FMCR92}. In the meantime, to hold us until the new version is ready, a
consolidation, \LaTeXe\ was publicly released in 1994. This is the
version of \LaTeX\ which constitutes the core of this discussion. From
time to time it will be necessary to recap some of the history which
brought us to \LaTeXe, but by and large the discussion is directed
at \LaTeXe. When some peculiarity of \LaTeXe\ is mentioned it will be
referred to as such, but most of the time, \LaTeX\ and \LaTeXe\
will mean the same thing. 

When will \LaTeX3 be released? Or rather, will your investment in
learning \LaTeX\ be lost when \LaTeX3 appears? I hope not, not
least since my investment will be lost too. It will take some time
before \LaTeX3 appears, and even when it does, the concepts will
likely stay much the same, although there may be detail changes \cite{DCCRFM98}. 
Furthermore, it is likely that there may be some sort of
compatibility mode, where existing (or \emph{legacy}) documents written in \LaTeX\
will be capable of being processed with \LaTeX3. Nothing should be
wasted. The investment is just too vast to risk.

\subsection{A proviso}
One possible disadvantage of the \LaTeX\slash\Scribe\
approach is that it requires that you have a notion of
just what it is you are trying to do: some people write
electronic or digital documents in a very haphazard, piecemeal
fashion, jumping around the document, and basically
losing track of things. If this is the way you work, and
you resent the rigour of structure, seeing it as a
straight-jacket rather than scaffolding, you may be
unhappy with \LaTeX. A little bit of discipline may help
to refine your ideas, and, in the longer term, achieve
more.


It is certainly true that you will not learn all there is
to know about \LaTeX\ from this brief account. On the other hand,
with its aid, you may learn enough to be able to
produce (apparently) complex documents, and without too much trouble.
Systems which are learned quickly sometimes lack stamina.
To some extent \LaTeX\ can be approached in an
`intuitive' way, but no-one is likely to try to claim
that it is especially `user-friendly', at least, not
until you are properly introduced.


\section{A note on pronunciation}
Some people get very worked up about the pronunciation
of \TeX\ and \LaTeX. Knuth says of `\TeX'\index{tex@\protect{\TeX}}
\begin{quote}
``Insiders pronounce the $\chi$ of \TeX\ as the Greek chi, not as a
`x', so that \TeX\ rhymes with the word blecchhh. It's the `ch'
sound in Scottish words like {\em loch\/} or German words like {\em
ach}; it's a Spanish `j' and a Russian `kh'.''
\end{quote}
Unfortunately, few of the English-speaking world are equipped to
pronounce \emph{loch}, and the German-speaking world has (at
least) two pronunciations of \emph{ach} -- the less obvious,
southern German form, is like \emph{ash} or perhaps \emph{asch}. In
the end, the majority of English-speakers seem to end up with
\emph{tecks} or \emph{teck}.

Lamport sagely notes: 
\begin{quote} 
``\dots pronunciation is best determined by usage, not fiat.
\TeX\ is usually pronounced \emph{teck}, making \emph{lah}-teck,
lah-\emph{teck}, and \emph{lay}-teck the logical choices; but
language is not always logical, so \emph{lay}-tecks is also
possible.''
\end{quote}
About the only possibility Lamport does not cover is \emph{L-A-teck}, so
perhaps we can conclude that that is not a recommended
pronunciation.

Of course, Knuth's description, as given here, begs the question a
little, since it does not say where the Greek chi comes from.
Knuth's original notion, in naming the software \TeX, was to use the
roman form of $\tau\epsilon\chi$, which is the beginning of the
Greek word transliterated as \emph{tekhn\=e}, which we use in words
like
\emph{technology}. To the Greeks this encompassed art \emph{and}
technology. A better rendition into contemporary english would
probably be something like \emph{craftsmanship}. An exposition of
\emph{tekhn\=e} might be the Parthenon in Athens, or even any piece
of work which was the responsibility of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

But, however we pronounce `\TeX' and `\LaTeX', we will always
recognize the logos, which are so difficult to produce in most
every other system. If you do have to write \TeX\ or \LaTeX\ in a
system where you cannot drop the `E' or raise the `A', write them
like `TeX' and `LaTeX'.  

\begin{question}
What would you say were the structural elements of a memo? or a
letter? What are the bits which are always present?
\end{question}
\begin{question}
This question cannot be answered immediately, but it may be
revealing if you keep it in your mind as you read through the book.
Ponder on the extent to which developments in software are  related
to available hardware. Try to imagine the sort of hardware and
operating systems which were available as Knuth was developing \TeX.
Contrast that with the hardware and operating systems which have led
to the development of \textsl{wysiwyg} (what you see is what you
get) software. What might Knuth and Lamport have done if they were
developing \TeX\slash\LaTeX\ today? 
\end{question}
\begin{question}
Take a word processing or document formatting system with which you
are familiar -- \texttt{nroff}, Runoff, \textsl{Pagemaker},
WordPerfect, Word, FrameMaker, Interleaf, Quark Xpress, lout,
\textsc{html}, paper and pencil, typewriter, etc., and note down what
seem to be their \emph{descriptive} and \emph{procedural} elements.
Which bits are concerned only with positioning of characters on the
page, and which bits describe items independently of their form? There
may even be a third category where the positioning and the `content' are
combined.
\end{question}

\section{Let's try it}
Since \LaTeX\ was developed for documentation, it is a good idea to
start with a fairly straightforward document and see
what it is we have to do in order to translate it onto
the page. We will assume that `marks on paper' are the
goal. The `paperless office' still seems as far away as ever,
despite efforts from most computer manufacturers, Xerox {\sc parc},
and the damage being done to the forests of the world.  

We will begin with the output: the end product of the document
preparation process. This end product, Figure~\ref{ishmael}, 
is not spectacular, but it does have some interesting
features, most of which we probably take for granted.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\fbox{\includegraphics{ishmael}}}
\caption{}\label{ishmael}
\end{figure*}
If we examine the input file, we will see that the text is enclosed
between the instructions in the following manner:\index{documentclass@\texttt{documentclass}}

\begin{small}
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass{book}
\begin{document}
\chapter{Example formatted file}
I stuffed a shirt or two into my old carpet-bag,
tucked it under my arm, and started for Cape Horn
and the Pacific. Quitting the good city of old
Manhatto, I duly arrived in New Bedford.  It was
on a Saturday night in December. Much was I
disappointed upon learning that the little packet
for Nantucket had already sailed, and that no way
of reaching that place would offer, till the
following Monday.

As most young candidates for the pains and
penalties of whaling stop at this same New
Bedford, thence to embark on their voyage, it may
as well be related that I, for one, had no idea of
so doing. For my mind was made up to sail in no
other than a Nantucket craft, because there was a
fine boisterous something about everything
connected with that famous old island, which
amazingly pleased me. Besides though New Bedford
has of late been gradually monopolizing the
business of whaling, and though in this matter
poor old Nantucket is now much behind her, yet
Nantucket was her great original --- the Tyre of
this Carthage; --- the place where the first dead
American whale was stranded. Where else but from
Nantucket did those aboriginal whalemen, the
Red-Men, first sally out in canoes to give chase
to the Leviathan?  And where but from Nantucket,
too, did that first adventurous little sloop put
forth, partly laden with imported cobblestones ---
so goes the story --- to throw at the whales, in
order to discover when they were nigh enough to
risk a harpoon from the bowsprit?

Now having a night, a day, and still another night
following before me in New Bedford, ere I could
embark for my destined port, it became a matter of
concernment where I was to eat and sleep
meanwhile. It was a very dubious-looking, nay, a
very dark and dismal night, bitingly cold and
cheerless. I knew no-one in the place.  With
anxious grapnels I had sounded my pocket, and only
brought up a few pieces of silver, --- ``So,
wherever you go, Ishmael,'' said I to myself, as I
stood in the middle of a dreary street shouldering
my bag, and comparing the gloom towards the north
with the darkness towards the south --- ``wherever
in your wisdom you may conclude to lodge for the
night, my dear Ishmael, be sure to inquire the
price, and don't be too particular.''
\end{document}
\end{verbatim}
\end{small}

\LaTeX\ has handled all the details of page size,
line-breaks, page-breaks (take my word on that one), 
hyphenation, ligaturing, paragraph
indentation, justification, the white space between lines, 
 and so on. These are all implied through the adoption of
the `book' document style.

Another feature which may have appeared transparently is the text's
division into paragraphs. If you leave a blank line,
\LaTeX\ will implicitly assume that this represents a paragraph break. 
And by default it will leave 
indentation at the beginning of the paragraph.

\section{Elementary typography}
What are ligatures\index{ligature}? In many ways they are left-overs from the
days of scribes. They are recognized `running together' of letters, to form a new symbol. The most
common examples, found in many typefaces are: 
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\quad$\to$\quad}l}
f{\,}f&ff\\
f{\,}i&fi\\
f{\,}l&fl\\
f{\,}f{\,}i&ffi\\
f{\,}f{\,}l&ffl
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
This is not simply a `very close' duo or trio of individual letters, but a completely new symbol.

This is by no means a universal transformation. It is bound by
typeface, by culture, and by time. Gutenberg's original 42 line
Bible, printed in about 1455, has at least 50 different ligatures. He
was trying to emulate the work of scribes. They had evolved all
sorts of shortenings which he strove to adopt. By the 19th century,
English had standardized on the 5 or so above, but  `ct' and `st' ligatures
persisted at least up to the middle of this century, although in rather specialist
typefaces. Although ligatures are more common in `serifed' typefaces, some
sans serif faces do have ligatures. Equally some fairly traditional
serifed faces have abandoned them. Stanley Morison, who is credited
with the design of the `Times' typeface, may well be rotating in his
grave now that \textsl{The Times} has dispensed with ligatures.


\LaTeX\ takes care of ligatures without even thinking about it too
deeply. It also takes care of `kerning'\index{kern}. Kerning is a much more
recent introduction, and occurs where letters overlap, but do not
touch. This is much more noticeable in capital letters: OXO or WAVE
ought to be good examples, where the horizontal extent of each
character overlaps with that of the next character. Again,
kerning is not supported in all fonts. In particular, you would
probably not want kerning in a font which was supposed to look like
typewriter characters. Kerning relates to the moving together of
characters to make the letter spacing more pleasing: it might be
better to describe this as `less displeasing'. We may notice when a
book is difficult to read because of the typography: we seldom
notice when it is easy to read. This is as it should be. A warning:
exposure to \TeX\ and \LaTeX\ can affect your enjoyment of the
printed word. You start to look at the typography much more closely.
It can destroy some books entirely.

You may perhaps notice some other things which are done entirely
automatically, and which tend to distinguish `typesetting' systems
from `desktop publishing' or word processing systems. The first
distinguishing feature  is the three different sorts of horizontal
rules or dashes, used in  text (although in Figure~\ref{ishmael} 
only two of them are used):

In fact, dashes\index{dash} come in lots of forms. Formally we identify
the following: the hyphen, the en-dash\index{en-dash}, and the
em-dash\index{em-dash} (and the minus\index{minus} sign too, but we'll look at
that later): see Table~\ref{dashit}. In most typestyles these will be different characters. A
hyphen\index{hyphen} is fairly obvious, and is conveyed to \LaTeX\  as a
\texttt{-} symbol. An en-dash is a longer symbol (about the length of an N in the
current font), and is therefore conveyed to \LaTeX\  as \verb|--|; an en-dash is
usually employed to convey the idea of a range, for example
1--10. Occasionally too, an en-dash is used when two names are joined,
like Runge--Kutta or Russell--Hertzsprung, although they are often just
hyphenated. Thirdly, the em-dash is even longer (related to the capital
M), and is given to
\LaTeX\  as \verb|---|. The em-dash is punctuation in text. (The minus is a
mathematical symbol which has to be given in maths  -- to be
covered later -- as \verb|$-$|.) 
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccl}
\hline
`correct name' & \LaTeX\ form & typeset form & example\\
\hline
hyphen    & \verb|-|     &     -   &  hy-phen\\
en-dash   & \verb|--|    &    --   &  1--7   \\
em-dash   & \verb|---|   & ---     & Knuth---the archi\TeX t\\
minus     & \verb| - |   &   $-$   & $x-y$ \\
\hline 
\end{tabular}
\caption{Length and meaning of horizontal lines\label{dashit}}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

Another feature is treated by \LaTeX\ as a sort of
ligature\index{ligature}.  Quotation marks\index{quotation mark}
(i.e.\ double inverted commas) come in open and close varieties in
many fonts. \LaTeX\ employs the quote (also known as
\textit{apostrophe} and \textit{prime}) and grave. On one of my keyboards
`quote' is on the right of the keyboard, just beside the
\verb|return| key). The left quote, or {\it grave} is at the top
left of the keyboard, beyond the numerical characters). Unfortunately, 
the `extra' characters on a keyboard do not
have standardized positions, and the location on your keyboard may
differ. Clearly, this provides you with only a single inverted left or
right comma at a time.  \LaTeX\ `ligatures' a pair of inverted
commas, whether they be grave or quote, to form a single `double'
quote mark. Thus, to form a double open quote mark on output (the `66' form)
 -- `` -- type a pair of graves -- \verb|``|, and to form the corresponding 
(`99') close
double quotes -- '' -- type a pair of quotes -- \verb|''|. The double quote
symbol on your keyboard -- \verb|"| -- should not be used.



\section{In the beginning}
The content of \emph{every} document we write with \LaTeX\ has a beginning and
end  delimited by the \verb|\begin{document}|\index{begin@\texttt{begin}} --
\verb|\end{document}|\index{end@\texttt{end}}\index{document@\texttt{document}}
pairing. Note that this is the beginning and end of textual content of the document. It is not the
beginning and end of the file of information. While it seems that there is little point in placing
anything after the \verb|\end{document}| statement, since it will never by
seen by \LaTeX, it is somewhere to keep notes, odd ideas and even
pieces of text you plan to use in the future.

This is described as a `document' \emph{environment}. The notion of
an enclosed environment, with a matching \verb+\begin+ and 
\verb+\end+ pair is fairly fundamental to \LaTeX. 

 The very beginning of the file of information has a
\verb|\documentclass| statement. This statement will be modified by
additional instructions which will determine many of the layout
alternatives which will be adopted; it also has some bearing on the
sorts of structures which are available.
\LaTeX\ has a small number of fixed document 
\emph{classes}\index{class} associated with it.

\section{Classes of style, flair and panache}
The basic \LaTeX\ document classes\index{document classes} are \texttt{book},
\texttt{report}, \texttt{article}, \texttt{letter}, \texttt{slides},
\texttt{proc} and \texttt{ltxdoc}. The first four of these
were the original `styles' released with \LaTeX\ and  documented (to
some extent) in the original manual \cite{LL85}. The remainder were
introduced with \LaTeXe, when the concept of `document class'
was also introduced, and separated carefully (though not wholly
convincingly) from `style'\index{style} (see also~\cite{LL94}).  
In general the names are descriptive,
meaningful and obvious. For those already familiar with \LaTeX\ the class
\texttt{slides} replaces \SliTeX, while \texttt{proc} is intended
to handle a conference proceedings. The last, \texttt{ltxdoc} is
an indirect product of the documentation effort related to
\LaTeXe\ and \LaTeX3, and is intended to assist in the
documentation of classes and styles. It will not be examined here.

There are other classes around, many of which are referred to and
described in the \textsl{\LaTeX{} Companion} \cite{MGFMAS94}. In
theory, these classes and styles should be documented in what Lamport refers to as
the \textsl{Local Guide}. He had the notion that every installation
would have a locally produced \textsl{Guide} which would contain
useful information on the availability of fonts, classes, styles, support
software, and so on.  \textsl{Guides} are usually conspicuous by their
absence. The \textsl{Companion} is an admirable substitute.

The implications of each style are sometimes hard to grasp. Just how
does \texttt{report} differ from \texttt{article}? To some extent
this is to misunderstand the function of the classes and the model
of \emph{declarative markup}\index{markup} which was outlined earlier. Lamport
worked with a number of document designers to develop the
classes\slash styles. And he made it a non-trivial job to `tweak' the
classes\slash styles to adapt them. In other words, he felt (very
strongly) that you, as the user, should get on with what you were good
at, namely writing, and let \LaTeX\ get on with what it was good at,
namely formatting. To be fair, \LaTeXe\ does simplify some modes
of modification. Everybody wants to tweak. And not everybody
enjoys the layouts adopted by Lamport. They certainly come out of a
particular typographic tradition, one which is not universal. It is
one possible comment that the original
\LaTeX\ book does not use the \texttt{book} layout available with
\LaTeX.

To use a particular class, we say\index{documentclass@\texttt{documentclass}}
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass{report}
\end{verbatim}
or whichever of the classes we wish to choose. In addition, there are
\emph{options}\index{options}, which modify the fundamental class. For example,
there are \texttt{11pt} and \texttt{12pt} options which allow us to
change the basic size of the font used in the main body of the text. By default, \LaTeX\ uses a 10
point font for its `body text'. \emph{Options} precede the
\emph{class}, and are enclosed in square brackets:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[11pt]{report}
\end{verbatim}



\begin{question}
  The example in Figure~\ref{ishmael} was created using the
  \texttt{book} class (since it is really a chapter from a book). To
  get some crude notion of the effects of changing styles (and
  options), you could edit the \verb|\documentclass| statement to
  create \texttt{article}s or \texttt{report}s at 10, 11 or 12 point.
\end{question}

\begin{question}
What other document classes do you require? 
\end{question}

Although there are few document classes, there are far more options.
There are also lots of `packages'\index{package} which allow us to change some
aspect of the default presentation and features of \LaTeX. Changing
an option or package is far easier than tackling a class. Later we
may look at the modifying or creating packages to alter the default
behaviour of \LaTeX. 

Clearly the options \texttt{10pt}, \texttt{11pt} and \texttt{12pt} are mutually
exclusive. A document may have only one basic type size.
But there are other options which affect some other aspect of the
presentation. For example, \texttt{twoside} formats the output
for printing on both sides of the page (`duplex' printing). Of
course this does not mean they will come out of the   printer
printed on both sides. It simply affects the physical position of the
mass of text on odd and even pages, so that when they are used as
masters (in a photocopier, for example), the text will fall in a
position which ensures that there is no `show through': that is, you cannot see the 
other page's text as a `shadow' through the paper, since it is obscured by the text on the page you
are reading. Such subtle niceties are the traditional concern of printers. Another option is
\texttt{twocolumn}, which produces two-column output. When we specify
several options, they are separated by  commas:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[twocolumn,11pt,twoside]{report}
\end{verbatim}

\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|}
\hline
\verb+\documentclass+&principal \texttt{options}\\
\hline
\texttt{book} & twocolumn, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt, twoside\\
\texttt{report} & twocolumn, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt, twoside\\
\texttt{article} & twocolumn, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt, twoside\\
\texttt{letter} & 10pt, 11pt, 12pt\\
\texttt{slide} &\\
\texttt{proc} & twocolumn, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt, twoside\\
\texttt{ltxdoc} & twocolumn, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt, twoside\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Some of the default range of classes and their
options\label{range}}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|}
\hline
size options&paper size\\
\hline
\texttt{a4paper}&$210\,\textrm{mm}\times297\,\textrm{mm}$\\
\texttt{a5paper}&$148\,\textrm{mm}\times210\,\textrm{mm}$\\ 
\texttt{b5paper}&$176\,\textrm{mm}\times250\,\textrm{mm}$\\
\hline
\texttt{letterpaper}&$8.5\,\textrm{in}\times11\,\textrm{in}$\\
\texttt{legalpaper}&$8.5\,\textrm{in}\times14\,\textrm{in}$\\
\texttt{executivepaper}&$7.25\,\textrm{in}\times10.5\,\textrm{in}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The  range of page size options\label{size}\index{size}}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}


\begin{question}
Try a few options.  Does \texttt{twoside} work correctly
on your printer? Be bold.
\end{question}

There are also a set of built in page sizes, Table~\ref{size}, which
do two things: they set the height and width of the text itself, and
they also position where the text will be placed on the page.
Obviously \LaTeX\ cannot know what page size you will ultimately use,
and selecting \texttt{a4paper} will not guarantee that the output
device, perhaps a laser printer, is actually loaded with the correct
size of paper. If you do not use any of these size options, the
default is \texttt{letterpaper}, a rather distressing result outside
the US. If you were using some other size of paper (perhaps for a
book), it would be necessary to set the width and height of the text
through some other means. This method is likely to be inappropriate.
It is also possible to add another option to these,
\texttt{landscape}, which swaps the height and width to give a
`landscape' orientation rather than the more normal `portrait'.

\section{More information}
Part of the structure of a document will be the `front' matter:
things like the title, the author, and so on. \LaTeX\ allows you to
include this information too. We can write something like
\begin{verbatim}
\title{The Carpet-Bag}
\author{Herman Melville}
\date{1851}
\end{verbatim}
By itself, this does nothing. Until we say \verb|\maketitle|\index{title}, this
information does not appear on the page. Since we would expect a
title to appear at the beginning of a document, the \verb|\title|,
\verb|\author| and \verb|\date| should normally appear before we
try to write out the title. The `best' place for the information is
therefore between the \verb|\documentclass| specification and the
\verb|\begin{document}| statement. From time to time this location will
be described as the document \emph{preamble}. But to be truthful, it can go
anywhere. If you do not specify a \verb|\date|, \LaTeX\ will use the
current one (which happens to be \today). In order to omit the date entirely, you could
type \verb+\date{}+. The empty braces are necessary: \verb+\date+
by itself would not give you an acceptable result.

\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[twocolumn,11pt]{book}
\title{The Carpet-Bag}
\author{Herman Melville}
\date{1851}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
.
.
\end{document}
\end{verbatim}

\begin{question}
Go ahead, do it. Of course you do not have to use \texttt{twocolumn} or
the \texttt{book} document class.
\end{question}

\section{Some back-tracking}
All along we have ignored the presence of some key characters. I
have presented instructions like \verb|\documentclass|\index{backslash} and
\verb|\begin| without much fanfare. The backslash character,
`\verb|\|', is of major importance. All \LaTeX\  instructions are
introduced by such a character. In a sense, it is the
\TeX\slash\LaTeX\ `escape character'. Whatever follows a \verb|\| is
treated in a special way, and will not appear on the page as
such. Obviously there are ways of making backslashes appear on the
page, since this document was produced through \LaTeX. Note too
that \LaTeX\ is case-sensitive\index{case
sensitive}.
\verb|\DocumentClass| will not be understood.  In very general terms, the majority of the
instructions you supply specifically for \LaTeX\ will be in lower
case. Only a  few instructions use upper case characters. 

A \LaTeX\ instruction\index{command}\index{instruction} may  be
constructed in \emph{only} one of two ways. The first\label{commands}, most flexible way,
which we have used already, is by a backslash followed by an arbitrary number of
alphabetic characters. Thus we might expect to see the following as
legal \LaTeX\ instructions: 
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\verb|\documentclass|&\verb|\raggedbottom|&\verb|\section|\\
\verb|\maketitle|&\verb|\vspace|&\verb|\hspace|\\
\verb|\kill|&\verb|\sloppy|&\verb|\newpage|\\
\verb|\framebox|&\verb|\line|&\verb|\circle|
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Each one of these is a legitimate instruction which already exists in
\LaTeX. The alternative form is a backslash followed by a
\emph{single non-alphabetic} character. Thus we might expect to see
the following:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\verb|\~|&\verb|\\|&\verb|\.|\\
\verb|\1|&\verb|\#|&\verb|\ |
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Note that `space'\index{space} is a legitimate non-alphabetic character. Since
it is sometimes difficult to see when `space' is meant, from time
to time we will use \verb*| | to indicate a  space which occurs 
between words and\slash or instructions; when  \verb*|\ | is used
it indicates the instruction where a space is the non-alphabetic
character (In \LaTeX\ this instruction actually generates a space).

We do not find  instructions like
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\verb|\A4|&\verb|\half-sized|&\verb|\up&down|\\
\verb|\1.1|&\verb|\(longer)|&\verb|\m.clark|
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

On the other hand, the \emph{option}s\index{options} may be made up of mixtures
of alphabetic and non-alphabetic characters (as we have already
seen: \verb+11pt+ or \verb+A4paper+). Options are always enclosed by the square brackets. 


The
\textit{argument} to an instruction, is the part in braces (or
\textit{curly} brackets). An instruction with an
argument\index{argument}
\emph{always} requires an argument, although as suggested earlier,
the argument could be `null' -- \verb|\date{}|. Sometimes you may
only specify one of a handful of alternatives, as in the case of the
arguments of \verb|\documentclass|, while in other cases, like
\verb|\author|, you have complete freedom. There are also
instructions which require no argument at all -- \verb|\maketitle|
is an example. The braces\index{braces} are never printed by \LaTeX. Of course,
there are ways to print \verb|{| and \verb|}| or even $\}$ and $\{$,
but we shall look at them later.
 
\begin{question}
What does happen when you specify a non-existent document class, or
a non-existent option? Hint: try it. Advice: Don't Panic (in large
friendly letters).
\end{question}

\section{Trying to correct mistakes} 
If you did the last exercise,  you will have deliberately made
mistakes on input, and will have encountered \LaTeX's error\index{errors}
processing capability. It is possible to correct errors as \LaTeX\ is
running interactively.  If you should successfully
correct the input in this way, you must also remember to correct
the original (assuming you might just need to re-run sometime).
To be more truthful, you may have met both \LaTeX's error
processing, \emph{and} \TeX's. Neither is especially elegant.

One of the most common mistakes is to invoke an instruction
which does not exist -- either because you let intuition
take the upper hand and assume that the instruction must exist, or,
more likely, because you mis-spell it. \LaTeX\ will object:
\begin{verbatim}
! Undefined control sequence.
l.3 \start
          {section}{Start}                   
?
\end{verbatim}                    
\LaTeX\ is trying hard to indicate where the error lies, principally
by breaking the line to indicate just where it has foundered. In the
example above, it is the instruction \verb+\start+. At this point it
is wise to note that (\La)\TeX\ refers to a `control sequence'\index{control
sequence|see{instruction}}, a piece of jargon which is often  replaced by the
word `command'\index{command}, and in this text by
`instruction'\index{instruction}.

Note however that we are left with a \verb|?| prompt. Let's be
intuitive, and assume that \LaTeX\ has something up its sleeve,
like additional help. How do you get help? How about typing
`\texttt{h}'? Lo, something else appears.
\begin{verbatim}
The instruction at the end of the top line
of your error message was never \def'ed. If 
you have misspelled it (e.g., `\hobx'), 
type `I' and the correct spelling (e.g., 
`I\hbox'). Otherwise just continue,
and I'll forget about whatever was undefined.

?
\end{verbatim}
Well, who can understand that? Not very helpful at all. But we've
still been left with a question mark. Let's try `\texttt{h}'  again.
\begin{verbatim}
Sorry, I already gave what help I could...
Maybe you should try asking a human?
An error might have occurred before 
I noticed any problems.
``If all else fails, read the instructions.''
\end{verbatim}
This is one of (\La)\TeX's attempts at humour or light heartedness.
All the same, it is probably good advice.

In response to the `\texttt{?}' prompt, you have several options.
You may type any of the following:
\begin{description} 
\item[\texttt{?}\quad]   where (\La)\TeX\  gives a summary of the following
options: 
\begin{verbatim}
Type <return> to proceed, S to scroll 
future error messages,
R to run without stopping, 
Q to run quietly,
I to insert something, 
E to edit your file,
1 or ... or 9 to ignore the next 1 to 9 
tokens of input,
H for help, X to quit.
\end{verbatim}

\item[\texttt{<return>}\quad]   just prod the \verb|return|
key (or the \verb+enter+ key).  \TeX\ proceeds as 
best it can, until it encounters another
error. 

\item[\texttt{X} or \texttt{x}\quad]  \LaTeX\  stops (eXits); you are
returned to the operating system. Any pages which have
already been completed may not be lost, but the current one will
certainly be lost; the previous one might be as well.

\item[\texttt{E} or \texttt{e}\quad]   this stands for `edit', and
should drop you into an editor. Not all implementations have this linking of
\LaTeX\ and  editors. If you do not drop into an editor, you
will simply be returned to the operating system prompt.
The best way to find out if it does work on your system is to try it.
If it does work you would find yourself editing the erroneous file,
at about the right line -- or rather, where \LaTeX\ thinks the error
occurred. Often it is remarkably close to the error.

\item[\texttt{I} or \texttt{i}\quad]  you may now type text 
to be Inserted at the current place in input. At first this seems
intimidating, but with some practice it does become a viable
route. Its major drawback is that you tend to forget these
`dynamic' corrections.

\item[a number between 1 and 99\quad]  \LaTeX\  deletes
this number of  characters and instructions from input. The
characters or instructions are those which are waiting to be
read -- in other words, \LaTeX\ has not yet `seen' them, or tried
to do anything with them. \LaTeX\ then asks for more information (you
could insert, etc.): \LaTeX\ sees an instruction as a
single item: it also sees a character as a single item --
otherwise termed `token'\index{token} -- for example, \verb|\textbf{bold}| is
seen as the 7 `tokens' \verb|\textbf|, \verb|{|, \verb|b|, \verb|o|, \verb|l|,
\verb|d| and \verb|}|. A space is treated as a
token, \emph{except} when it immediately follows a instruction. 

\item[\texttt{H} or \texttt{h}\quad] 
(\La)\TeX\ gives some sort of help. 

\item[\texttt{S} or \texttt{s}\quad] this is like typing
\verb|<return>| (or \verb|<enter>|) for every subsequent error
message. The error messages are logged, but you have no chance of
interaction. 

\item[\texttt{R} or \texttt{r}\quad] this is like {\tt S}, only
worse; under no circumstances stop. 

\item[\texttt{Q} or \texttt{q}\quad] even even worse; \LaTeX\
suppresses all output to the terminal (goes a lot faster,
subjectively), but perhaps not the best route unless you are very
confident that you know what you are doing, which obviously you
don't, else you would not have made a mistake in the first place.
There is an instruction equivalent, \verb|\batchmode|, which gives a
good clue of when this would be most commonly used.
\end{description}


There is obviously a temptation to just
type \verb|<return>| and let \LaTeX\  surge ahead to report on any
other errors. Unfortunately the corrections \LaTeX\  may have made in
order to do something apparently sensible may lead to other mistakes
later on.  When I don't feel up to mental gymnastics I much prefer
to leave \LaTeX\  (by typing \texttt{x} or \texttt{e}), correct
the error, and then return to \LaTeX. 

\section{Hints}
Don't panic. Error messages are often difficult to fathom, and it
can be easier to solve the problem with reference to your text and
the instructions which were included in the file than to attempt to
understand what the error message is saying. But do not ignore the
messages entirely. Sometimes they can be uncannily accurate and
helpful.

What are the common errors?\index{errors} Failing to balance braces (every
open brace must have a corresponding close brace). This is really
quite difficult to correct through the error reporting and
correction procedure outlined above. If you have a brace open,
\LaTeX\ may do quite a lot of work before you realise that something
has gone wrong. In such a case it is almost impossible to put
things back together in a reasonable way. 
Sometimes this situation manifests itself when processing
finished and you  see a message that 
\begin{verbatim}
(\end occurred inside a group at level 1)
\end{verbatim}
In a similar way, from time to time you might fail to `\verb|\end|'
something you have `\verb|\begin|ned'; again the same message may
appear. More readily apparent, you may \verb|\begin| something but 
\verb|\end| it with the wrong thing. 
 

Mis-types are a frequent
source of problems. After all, if you type \verb+artical+ for
\verb+article+, \LaTeX\ can hardly be expected to divine your
intention. Any instruction  which is presented to \LaTeX\ `incorrectly'
will present a problem. It really does not care about your own
spelling. It does care about the instructions you give it, and since it
thinks you know best, it attempts to follow your orders to the
letter. 

Apart from that, what can go wrong?