Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:34:43 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 8/5/12, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 05:16, Will Robertson wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012, at 9:53 PM, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>>
>>> Admittedly, none of the three "solutions" is great. As Joseph notes,
>>> we've gone for a single line in the l3 source. We could perhaps add
>>> \def\^^M{\unskip\space\ignorespaces} to the \begin{syntax} setup: this
>>> would allow
>>>
>>> \cs{some_function_with_a_very_long_name:nnnnn} \
>>> \Arg{first argument} \Arg{second argument} \
>>> \Arg{third argument} \Arg{fourth argument} \
>>> \Arg{fifth argument}
>>
>> I've been thinking for a while that having \obeylines in the syntax
>> environment (which predates my involvement on this code IIRC) has made
>> certain things rather awkward.
>>
>> It would be an annoying change to have to implement in our sources, but
>> what do you think about dropping \obeylines?
>>
>> -- Will
> Seems sensible to me: we've altered how we approach using this
> environment, and \obeylines is probably not that helpful.
> --
> Joseph Wright
I agree, we've moved towards using the active characters less and \cs,
\meta, \Arg more. Perhaps there could be an option "syntax-active =
false" to completely disable active characters in the syntax blocks?
-- Bruno
|
|
|