## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: \@ifdefinable Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]> Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200 text/plain (24 lines) At 12:56 -0400 97/10/20, Matthew Swift wrote: >I don't have an opinion on cleaning up the internals of \@ifdefinable; >I have been able to write a large number of defining commands without >running into any problems in this regard (the moredefs package).   I just want to clean up the logic, so it is cleaner when starting doing more complicated things (such as implementing "object"): When defining a new command one wants to ensure first that it does not conflict with the LaTeX internals, which seems to be what the \@ifdefinable should be, and then you may have additional wishes, such as \@ifundefined. > 4) advanced syntax that lets you compute the macro name and/or write a > complex parameter specification.   Isn't this just the usual (in-reality-not-so-advanced) TeX parameter definitions you are thinking of here?   I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is pointless. Should it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed in compatibility mode?   Hans Aberg                   * Email: Hans Aberg                   * AMS member listing: