Volkan Yavuz writes:
> A package author identifies not just the package name but also gives
> it's location within a hierarchy (modules, submodule). This hierarchy
> may also correspond to some extent to the directory structure on
> CTAN.... :-) It may be feasible to use a deeper module hierarchy than
> the current directory structure on CTAN to be able to categorize
> packages more exactly.
This is what I was hinting at when I referred to \base/ltbibl/@citex
(May I suggest not including `latex3', since it is superfluous, and we
want upward compatibility with LaTeX4 . . . .)
Some of us are talking at cross-purposes, so allow me to clarify what
I was getting at before.
There are some conflicting concerns:
1. Macro/symbol names should follow a consistent scheme, be easy to
remember and use. Hence `long' names.
2. I was addressing the problem of keeping format file size and
control sequence space requirements to a minimum. This has been one
of the stated aims of the project. Hence `short' names. Is this no
longer a concern? Is it OK if all macro names are thirty or more
characters long? If so, dump the short names altogether, and stick
with the long names. We use smart editors.
Hans Aberg writes:
> So a command like this could be useful to load all macros in
> latex3/contrib/math, but it would not abbreviate the names. Instead an user
> would define a special environment which abbreviates the names. Inventing
> and as long as the locality is valid, names \m/foo would expand to
> One reason for doing it this way is that it is difficult know in advance
> what kind of blends of modules users may make use of.
> Then one could of course think of more complicated things (like search
> paths etc), but I think this would suffice quite far.
My `gut' feeling is that this is a Very Bad Idea, but I'm not sure
why. Perhaps because it doesn't lend itself to portable code. LaTeX
`code' tends to be reused in much smaller chunks than is normal with
other programming languages. If you copy some code from within some
`module' construct, you have to be very careful where you put it. It
might find itself being called inside some other `module', possibly
with bizarre results.
PS Nice photo!
Javier Bezos writes:
> Renaming commands
> Suppose someone is determined to study the internal latex code with the
> new naming scheme. He take the TeXbook and... surprise! The latex code is
> absolutely unintelligible.
This was my reaction too. And the new names are often not transparent
renamings of the original - as you point out, some are subtly
different. You need to know not only the new names but you need to
keep the implementations in mind too.
> I thing the primitive (and maybe plain)
> command names should be preserved with perhaps some minute changes; eg.
> \_box instead of \box (you may think of that as "no module").
Interesting idea. But I think we are looking at an `all-or-nothing'
solution. I don't recall seeing LaTeX listed in those `shoot yourself
in the foot' jokes; let's keep it that way.
> However, I think it's not a good idea to change at all the meaning of
> those well established names. If \box has another meaning it could
> lead to confusion.
A couple of days ago I needed a macro for typesetting program code
within math mode. We have \mathrm, \mathtt, etc. so I thought: why
not \mathcode? Oops, that's a TeX primitive. Ben L. User would
probably be annoyed about that. I must admit that I'm slowly coming
around to the [removeoldnames] option.