LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Javier Bezos <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:30:49 +0100
text/plain (34 lines)
Hi Will,

> I know you've written about this before, but I think I've lost the
> post (or rather, never received it and read it through the archives at
> some stage) where you go into detail about your thoughts on this
> matter.

I'll try to find them. Right now I'm hearing Berg's Wozzeck, so
I'm not sure I'n in the mood ;-).

But one of my concerns was related to the number of specifications:

> probably the time to discuss things again. I think the recent letters
> by Morten, Joseph and I on the different "argument specifications"
> showed that there are many different cases to consider, and also lots
> of scope for different solutions.

Many, too many. This might lead to a combinatorial explosion.

Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying
the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but
I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled).

(Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the
near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX,
to be honest.)