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]>
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:54:21 +0200
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (67 lines)
Will Robertson writes:
 >  From these comments, I'm going to propose, tentatively, that with a  
 > change of name to xparse2e we can call this package "ready" in terms  
 > of interface and scope of application.
 > Let's think about the package in terms of three aspects:
 > (A) argument types
 > (B) separation of interface/implementation
 > (C) expandable argument processing
 > We've discussed point A extensively and, I think, produced a very  
 > workable result. This is the core of the package that I'd like to  
 > promote for package authors now.

agreed (as far as the arg spec syntax is concerned)

 > Point B is something I think I'd like to work with more in the future,  
 > and as layers 0 and -1 start separating (see parallel thread) it may  
 > become more useful. Having said that, at this stage it's probably of  
 > little use so I don't expect much to happen with  
 > \DeclareDocumentCommandInterface at this point in time.
 > (I sort of feel that if it's to be used, it should be pervasive -- the  
 > benefits of separating interface/implementation are diluted if only a  
 > subset of commands are defined in such a way.)

in my opinion how to best separate layer -1 and layer 0 is up in the air

Right now we have

 \DeclareDocumentCommand  - doing both

 \DeclareDocumentCommandInterface ... making a stab at separation but not
 thought through really (the names are pretty bad really).

Personally I would like to table it for now and if we return to it with some
good ideas it isn't too hard to even change anything that by then used

Alternative is to go on through a few more cycles to get a grip on this split
(layer -1 and 0) but I gurantee that this is going to be difficult at the
current stage.

The only problem that I see is the following:

 \DeclareDocumentCommand is quite a fine name and if we attach it to something
 that bundles layer -1 and 0 then it will be a little difficult to use it
 later, say, only for layer 0 declaration

So having said this, perhaps tabling it isn't such a grand idea after all and
we should discuss naming and concepts a little further first.

 > Point C is something I'm a little unsure of; I do think it's nice to  
 > have available, I just wonder when it will be used in practise. (It  
 > seems more useful in 2e than in LaTeX3 given their different  
 > approaches to robust commands.)

me too. I guess Morten could say a bit more about it but I'm not sure we
really need it - not for \omit and the like.

and I might confess that I don't quite like the restrictions it generates.