One person has ticked me off for having a shouting match with Mike Barr. I apologise. Several others have expressed sympathy, solidarity, etc. I don't think the categories list is an appropriate place for a discussion of LaTeX, so I don't want to go into any details. I just want to make an observation to settle the minds of those who are already using various packages or who are considering which one to use. Existing methods of drawing commutative diagrams may be divided, broadly speaking, into three classes: (1) use some general purpose graphics package, either within TeX (eg eepic, pictex) or by importing PostScript (eg MacDraw, CorelDraw). (2) matrix-based specialist commutative diagrams packages such as those of Francis Borceux; ftp sol.cs.ruu.nl /pub/TEX/DIAGRAM/diagram* Kris Rose (xypic); ftp ftp.diku.dk /pub/tex/misc/xypic.tar.Z Steven Smith (arrow); ftp ftp.cs.umb.edu /pub/tex/eplain/arrow.tex Mike Spivak (lamstex); june.cs.washington.edu /tex/LAMS-TeX.tar.Z me; ftp theory.doc.ic.ac.uk /tex/contrib/Taylor/tex/diagrams-V4* maybe others; please tell me if these are not the authoritative archives (3) Mike Barr's macros. If you think Mike Barr's design philosophy is the right one then (God help you) you should send your suggestions to him. If you like mice then I hope you'll be happy together. The main point is this:******************************************************* * If you use any of the five packages I've mentioned in (2) * * AND STICK TO THEIR CORE FEATURES, AVOIDING HACKS & GIMMICKS * * then you have a pretty good chance of getting continued support should the * * one you use cease to be maintained, because since their conceptual basis * * is common it will be possible to emulate or translate them. * ****************************************************************************** For example, /tex/contrib/Taylor/tex/Borceux-to-Taylor-prototype.tex is a first attempt to emulate Francis' macros using mine. Try it out if you like but don't complain if it doesn't work correctly because I know that. It's a bug-ridden prototype to demonstrate the principle. Several low-level modifications have been made to my package (or are on the agenda) to deal with the minor conceptual differences and thereby facilitate emulation. Existing users of matrix-based packages (especially those who have used more than one of them) are welcome to send me their comments on the treatment of the core features. I will collect comments and forward them to whatever committee emerges to formulate proposals for LaTeX 3. Suggestions such as Might I also mention strings, links, and Penrose tensor notation. will only cause annoyance. How many such diagrams do you envisage ever being drawn? The original question was about syntax, and you have contributed nothing to that, even if anyone were willing to implement these features. I have my own research/career to get on with, and maintain TeX primarily for that. I'm certain Francis would say the same, as probably would others. If you want special features, DIY or *pay* somebody like Spivak to do it. An experience with a certain professor (and his publisher, OUP) who got me to spend several days rewriting my macros for use in some paper about a cube, and didn't even so much as take me out for a drink afterwards, has made me dis-inclined to go very far out of my way. I'm sorry. Paul ==============================================================================