LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
James Kilfiger <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:15:20 +0000
<[log in to unmask]> from Frank Mittelbach at "Oct 29, 99 05:51:51 pm"
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (80 lines)
> James Kilfiger writes:
>  > I was thinking rather vaguely about templates for sectional heading.
>  > I can think of at three style for authors to make sectional headings.
>  > As now, with section commands, with section evironments, and in a
>  > list-like manner. Templates for headings should be able of supporting
>  > classes that use a mixture of these styles.
> as far as section commands ala latex and section environments are
> concerned i don't see any difficulties. can you be a bit more specific
> in what you mean by "in a list-like manner"? e.g. show a syntax
> example of what you mean

Actully I'd doubt there is any difficulty, What I meant is document
syntax like:
 \end{section}  % section environments
 \section{...} ...
 \end{}\end{}  %list like, in that \section is behaving like \item, syntacticly

(Other thought, is minimization like \end{} useful?)

>  > of contents.  (BTW this seems to show a general problem in Latex syntax
>  > when two or more indepedent optional arguments are required.)
> it is correct that the current LaTeX syntax is a bit poor in this respect
> but so it is. by separating xparse and templates we are free to
> provide a better front-end one day by using something else than xparse.

Actully it occured to me that the xparse allows a partial solution to
this, in that one can say \command[\NoValue][option]  to get the default
behaviour from the first argument. That won't work with `O{}' type
arguments, unless \ddc@O does a \IfNoValue check. And the main reason
for `O' is to avoid \IfNoValue, however the test would only be done when
an optional argument was given, so it would be less of a problem.
Perhaps this is an argument for using a real quark for \NoValue, but
using a quark as part of document syntax would be dangerous.  Perhaps
this argues for giving up the recursive test in IfNoValue, and just
doing an \ifx agaist \NoValueInIt.  How well hidden could \NoValue be in

> as far as the template arguments are concerned i think they should be
> of type boolean here (how this is mapped to latex top level syntax is
> a different matter)
> my current idea about the template type heading is like this:
>   #1    boolean         number or not
>   #2    boolean         text into toc or not
>   #3    boolean         text into running head/foot or not
>   #4    text            heading text (required)
>   #5    text/NoValue    text for toc (use #4 if NoValue)
>   #6    text/NoValue    text for runhead (use #4 if NoValue)
>   #7    text/NoValue    supplementary text like a motto
> as i said above i'm not at all sure about the need or the
> "sensibility" of #2/#3 except perhaps for compatibility purposes to
> latex2e classes --- to tell me your thoughts.

What is your view of the aim in terms of compatiblity with 2e.  Should
there be source compatiblity or formatting compatiblity.  I'd say the
first is essential, if only in a compatiblty mode, the second may be
desirable, but only in a compatitblty mode.

As for the desirablity of #2/#3, I'm sure if you don't offer them,
people will complain.  Certainly `I want an unnumbered section in the
TOC' is a common request on comp.text.tex.  I think this is a case for
practicality rather than purity and elegance.

By `motto' do you mean epigram, typeset at the end of the chapter?