 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
| Date: |
Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:29:50 +1030 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
<031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC> |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 05/12/2008, at 1:00 AM, Javier Bezos wrote:
> Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying
> the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but
> I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled).
: is just a letter character; it's just convention that puts it only
once in the function names. Other package writers may well do odd
things in their naming if they wish :)
Does \module:name:suffix have any advantage over \module_name:suffix ?
There are some inconsistencies at the moment with initial prefixes --
but we're trying to fix this up ASAP to minimise the number of (or, at
least, better organise the) "module prefixes" we're using.
> (Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the
> near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX,
> to be honest.)
That's understandable.
I'm very interested in seeing what happens there.
Will
|
|
|
