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]>
Date:
Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:10 +0000
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From:
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Arno Trautmann wrote:
>> \latexstart
> 
> What is this good for?…

Just an idea, based on \starttext from ConTeXt.  I quite liked the idea
that the entire document was within a "latex environment".  Totally
unnecessary, of course.

>> \itemizestart
>>   \item An item
>>   \item Another one
>> \itemizeend
> 
> Now that I read code not written by me, I notize a disadvantage: It’s
> much harder to distinguish macros from environments. Maybe
> 
> \itemize_start
>   \item
>   \item
> \itemize_end
> 
> might be better?

This takes us back to the category code of non-letter characters: I
doubt that having _ as a document-level "letter" is a good plan.  Of
course, you could do something like

\def\itemize_#1{% _ *not* a letter
  % Do tests on #1
}

I'm not sure that this is much of an improvement on sticking with the
current scheme, however. Perhaps this shows us the wisdom of using
\begin{...} and \end{...}.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2