Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:31:51 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 06/03/2011 07:47, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > It's not 100 clear yet, but the initial plan at least for me is that
> > coffins are a design-level construct. That means that \NewCoffin is the
> > way to produce coffins - \coffin_new:N is there mainly to be wrapped up
> > in a design-level function.
> >
> > Perhaps you might illustrate what you're doing at a 'concept' level?
>
> in my opinion it should be there, so I would call it an oversight.
>
> On document level, you are right, \NewCoffin should be enough but if you build
> a package that involves coffins it is possible that the names of that coffin
> are build from other structures, so that you wan to use :c to produce them
When I rewrote the coffins code, I originally included "c" variants, but
decided to leave them out pending seeing whether they were needed. I've
no objection to them, I was just trying to avoid 'variant overkill'.
Note that if you allow "c"-type names, then it's not just \coffin_new:N
that needs variants. All of the 'code-level interface' functions should
be done for consistency. This is the work of 5 minutes: shall I make the
change?
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|