LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:19:44 +0200
In-Reply-To:
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
At 14:58 +0100 98/06/25, Philip Taylor (RHBNC) wrote:
>>>   I guess there will be a command called \tex_def or \tex/def or something,
>>> which one can use.
>
>Indeed, that was my very point : David was suggesting that \def could
>be made inaccessible by the format; I argued that all the while TeX lacks
>the equivalent of PostScript's "bind", primitives which are used by
>maos defined in the format source and which must be accessible to
>the user code can never be made totally inaccessible.  You can "hide"
>them but you can't remove them, so why bother even to hide them if an astute
>programmer can work his way around the hiding mechanism?

  I think the idea should be to help indicating objects proper use.

>(the earlier proposal to use commercial-at is just one way of hiding such
> things, neither better nor worse (in this context) than any other mechanism).

  For use with modules, my suggestion is that @ should be used for
indicating that a command is "private" or "protected", that is not for
external use of that module.

  So the command should then be named \tex/def and not \tex/@def, as some
other module is going to use it, like other modules defining \<module
name>/new.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
                  * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2