Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:41:12 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote:
> Joseph Wright a écrit :
>> How do you see that working with things like \DeclareDocumentCommand.
>> Two options come to mind:
>>
>> 1) Given them names which reflect the separation
>> (\DeclareLaTeXDocumentCommand, etc.)
>>
>> 2) Add an extra "model" argument:
>>
>> \DeclareDocumentCommand { <model> } { <name> } { <argument-detail> }
>> { <code> }
>>
>> where we make no assumptions about anything here and do something like
>>
> How about a global switch like \UseLaTeXeCommands (or whatever)? I tend to think
> the current name is already long enough...
>
> Anyway, if Frank's idea of having separate packages xparse-2e and maybe latter
> xparse-gellmu or how knows, currently the switch is done by calling
>
> \usepackage{xparse-2e}
>
> or possibly another one (since l3 is still used on top on 2e at the moment), so
> I guess the question will only arise latter. Anyway, probably only one on the
> possibly various xparse-* will be used at the same time, so I don't see any
> problem with them using the smae command name.
>
> Manuel.
>
I'm thinking ahead: you can't use the same command name in a format
without needing a different format for each possible case. I'm also
thinking that at the very least \DeclareDocumentCommand needs to have
the same number of arguments when creating LaTeX2e commands, gellmu
commands, ...
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|