LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Modules
From: Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:38:55 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (21 lines)
At 19:48 +0200 98/06/17, Chris Rowley wrote:
>This is certainly something that needs attention but is probably
>independent of L3PL modularisation, or maybe there is some overlap?

  There is some overlap, which is why I bring it up: The correct way to do
this stuff is to write it out by hand as in L3PL, and then with a good
context given by all the code to fit into it, and successively moves to
higher levels of abstraction. But on this road, there are some sneaky
points, namely if one does not start to think about modules and submodules
one the final higher abstraction level, some of the early decisions will be
wrong, and then all work has to be redone (or it will be impossible to
implement it).

  So I try to mainly point out some of the principles I saw, and perhaps
they can help to influence the L3PL if needed.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
                  * Home Page: <>
                  * AMS member listing: <>