LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:33:00 +0100
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<772890524.4456383.1293712380000.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb010>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From:
Uwe Lueck <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
"Reinhard Kotucha" <[log in to unmask]>, 30.12.2010 02:39:15:
> Please note that I regard LaTeX more as a markup language rather than
> a programming language.  LaTeX has a clear syntax, optional arguments
> are in box brackets, not in curly braces.  I don't see any good reason
> to break LaTeX's syntax rules deliberately.

We have presented examples before where present LaTeX syntax 
is not nice, and this still is my opinion.

A better proposal than using different category codes is 
programming macros with optional arguments obeying 
a convention that makes a choice of delimiters available to users.  
Any macro package replacing \@ifnextchar[ by some 
\ifx\let@token\opt@arg@delim could be run this way. 

If no LaTeXY will adopt this, I will call it L├╝TeX :-)

Cheers, 

    Uwe.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2