LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:31:50 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: xparse
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2