Deprecate ExPex

[chbrown]

Or at least strongly recommend using gb4e-emulate or linguex.

ExPex is powerful, partly due to it doing everything its own way (for example, references), but that means it's easy to break from the standard aesthetic.

List of grievances:

• ExPex does not measure width / right margin properly (ExPex does not measure width / right margin properly #9)
• ExPex labeling does not support \ref{}erencing properly (ExPex labeling does not support \ref{}erencing properly #14)
  • At S&P, root level examples in footnotes are numbered with roman numerals.
  • ExPex supports this in the immediate/surface labels via \lingset{exnotype=roman}, but references to these examples use the default arabic numbering (for both \ex and \pex root level examples, as well as \pex ... \a subexamples)

[chbrown]

More gripes:

• ExPex treats \label{} as non-space; e.g.,

  \ex\label{main}
    Hello
  \xe

  Gets an ugly extra space at the beginning; to get this to render properly (as if there was no \label{}), it should be:

  \ex\label{main}%
    Hello
  \xe

• Why have different commands \ex vs. \pex for examples-without-subparts and examples-with-subparts? Other example typesetting libraries disambiguate / automatically adjust, no problem. Don't Make Me Think.

• The texdoc expex manual is 82 pages long. It's. not. that. hard.

• There doesn't seem to be a way to group together root-level examples in order to discourage LaTeX from putting a page break in between.

• \pex[labeltype=roman] is broken; the subexamples start numbering from (ii). Other labeltype values work just fine, starting at 1, a, etc.

  • Copy&pasting example (22) from the documentation into a brand new empty \documentclass{article} document produces a different result than is shown there:
    
  • This is with version 5/25/2017 v5.1b ExPex linguistics example formatter (JF) (which has been out for a while)