Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:19:07 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
J.Fine a écrit :
> Thank you. It's not the only nice thing we can do. Here are some more:
>
> * Allow digits in control sequence names
> * Allow period in control sequence names
I think the naming scheme (at the programming level at leat) has been discussed
previously and is now considered stable. Let's not re-discuss again and again
points were decisions are already made. (And btw, I personnaly think the namign
scheme in expl3 is good.)
> * Allow '~' to produce a space /in all circumstances/
>
What would be the purpose?
> The LaTeX3 project has put much effort into naming conventions for control
> sequences. I think having the ability to name parameters will bring
> at least the same benefit.
>
I think realism should also be a key word if we ever want to be a stable LaTeX3.
And I really would like to see it :-)
>> it doesn't seem that important to me how we refer to
>> arguments within a macro.
>
I agree with your (Will) argument and conclusion on this point.
> Which is easier to type and to read?
> \wibble.wobble_trip
> \wibble_wobble_trip
>
It depends on your personal habits. The second one is perfectly fine for me.
(After all, unlike most language, we have to type \ in the front of every
"function", so let's not try to mimick other languages too much.)
> We could even go further and implement something much more
> like a real module system for macro programming. Something
> that would raise load- or compile-time import errors, rather than
> the current run-time error.
>
Again, let's be realistic. There is already some error handling done. Moreover,
the distinction between load, compile and run time doesn't seem relevant for TeX.
Manuel.
|
|
|