Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:58:14 +0930 |
Content-Type: | multipart/signed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 09/08/2009, at 5:00 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> That leads to calls which look like:
>
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { o m }
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { o +m }
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { O{default} m }
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { d() l m }
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { u{\bar} t+ +m }
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { s D<>{default} b o +m }
>
> This does not seem too bad to me: what do other people think?
Comparing this back to the original xparse, the changes here are:
- >{P} replaced by +
- >{W} dropped, since it is applied automatically when necessary
(final optional argument)
- c dropped, replaced by 'd()'
- d** and D**{} added
- u* and U*{} added
Personally, I still prefer the simpler 'o'/'o{}' syntax, but if we
feel that the disambiguation of 'o'/'O{}' is more straightforward I'm
happy with your proposal above.
Regarding Lars' ideas in doc2l3, I do quite like the idea of his
argument pre-processing stage. But let's discuss that afterwards. We
can always add it with another letter!
Will
|
|
|