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
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:31:51 +0000
text/plain (24 lines)
On 06/03/2011 07:47, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>  > It's not 100 clear yet, but the initial plan at least for me is that
>  > coffins are a design-level construct. That means that \NewCoffin is the
>  > way to produce coffins - \coffin_new:N is there mainly to be wrapped up
>  > in a design-level function.
>  > 
>  > Perhaps you might illustrate what you're doing at a 'concept' level?
> in my opinion it should be there, so I would call it an oversight. 
> On document level, you are right, \NewCoffin should be enough but if you build
> a package that involves coffins it is possible that the names of that coffin
> are build from other structures, so that you wan to use :c to produce them

When I rewrote the coffins code, I originally included "c" variants, but
decided to leave them out pending seeing whether they were needed. I've
no objection to them, I was just trying to avoid 'variant overkill'.
Note that if you allow "c"-type names, then it's not just \coffin_new:N
that needs variants. All of the 'code-level interface' functions should
be done for consistency. This is the work of 5 minutes: shall I make the
Joseph Wright