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, 23 Aug 2009 16:41:12 +0100
text/plain (39 lines)
Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote:
> Joseph Wright a écrit :
>> How do you see that working with things like \DeclareDocumentCommand.
>> Two options come to mind:
>> 1) Given them names which reflect the separation
>> (\DeclareLaTeXDocumentCommand, etc.)
>> 2) Add an extra "model" argument:
>> \DeclareDocumentCommand { <model> } { <name> } { <argument-detail> }
>>   { <code> }
>> where we make no assumptions about anything here and do something like
> How about a global switch like \UseLaTeXeCommands (or whatever)? I tend to think
> the current name is already long enough...
> Anyway, if Frank's idea of having separate packages xparse-2e and maybe latter
> xparse-gellmu or how knows, currently the switch is done by calling
> \usepackage{xparse-2e}
> or possibly another one (since l3 is still used on top on 2e at the moment), so
> I guess the question will only arise latter. Anyway, probably only one on the
> possibly various xparse-* will be used at the same time, so I don't see any
> problem with them using the smae command name.
> Manuel.

I'm thinking ahead: you can't use the same command name in a format
without needing a different format for each possible case. I'm also
thinking that at the very least \DeclareDocumentCommand needs to have
the same number of arguments when creating LaTeX2e commands, gellmu
commands, ...
Joseph Wright