On 5/27/14, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 27/05/2014 17:12, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>> On 5/27/14, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 27/05/2014 16:58, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>>>> I tend to agree with you that we should not let \__dim_strip_pt:n and
>>>> \__dim_strip_bp:n accept arbitrary junk. That's easy to change, as
>>>> they are only used internally. On the other hand, the public
>>>> \dim_to_pt:n and \dim_to_unit:n are documented as allowing multiple
>>>> units, for the use-case Joseph describes.
>>> If you look over the current actual uses in the LaTeX kernel, they are
>>> focussed purely on some aspects of font use. I suspect we'd be better,
>>> long-term, to allow this sort of thing if at all only at the interface
>>> layer, and to have all of the 'general' code stuff expect 'well defined'
>>> dimensions. Means a doc change, but I feel an reasonable one.
>> My worry is not about doc changes, but about people who might be using
>> \dim_to_pt:n "in the wild". We'd be breaking code. Can we have a
>> deprecation period?
> A reasonable point, but not always possible when we make an 'in place'
> change (which are rare). Here, a sweep over TL2014 shows no uses outside
> of the kernel code: I'd hope the impact will be very low.
> Joseph Wright
I suggest we wait a few more days. If no one on the list complains in
the next couple of days about the change to make \dim_to_pt:n and
\dim_to_unit:nn more restrictive, we should go forward.