Uwe Lueck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Somewhat contrary to Will: the "endorsed" packages needn't be loaded
> unless the user chooses an option that needs a certain package. This
> way such an interface would "support" or "cover" certain packages,
> rather than "endorsing" some. 

agreed.

and (from reading the docs) there seems no reason why the average
package-writer-on-the-street should not write his own
interfaces-pwots-package to tie in with interfaces.  (note, i've not
actually read the code yet, so i may be wrong here.

> This also reminds me of memoir.cls, "endorsing" (copying) certain
> "standard" packages; yet I have never studied by which commands the
> features of those packages are accessed by the user. 

memoir uses the code of packages that peter wilson wrote as he was
designing ... memoir.  i don't think i would have spotted the purpose of
the packages if peter hadn't occasionally mentioned it when submitting
packages.

as a development strategy, it seems quite neat, to me ... but it does
make faq answer-writing a little tortuous: "you can use memoir or
koma-script or package x, y or z to do this; package y is actually part
of memoir".

robin