Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:48:11 +0100
Am Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:50:53 +0000 schrieb Joseph Wright:
> On 26/02/2016 11:37, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>> Am Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:27:01 +0000 schrieb Joseph Wright:
>>> New prefixes registered as detailed below.
>> which triggered me to look at the list.
>> And imho in my case the order is wrong (the prefix is UF and the
>> package citeall). Also my name is not written correctly.
> Correct, though looking at the code the prefix is "UFca" (which is what
> I've put)
>> It also reminds me of a question: Is there a prefix pattern which
>> will never be registered so that one can safely use it in
>> local/private definitions?
> We can only *ask* we can't *tell*, but I'd probably strongly discourage
> "foo", "tmp", "local", "mypkg" and similar 'throw away' prefixes. I'll
> see if the team feel we should register a prefix specifically for this
> purpose ('Local additions not to be distributed').
tmp or local or mypkg are too vage. My problem are code in classes
or style for customers. I would like to have things like
\c_customerA_textwidth_dim but I can't register the prefixes as the
names are naturally private information. Also as they are not used
in public packages it doesn't make much sense to block the prefixes
for ever. It is not a very pressing problem.