Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:45:02 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Joseph Wright skrev:
> Lars Hellström wrote:
>> Since it was a while ago I'm not so sure, but I think I arrived at the
>> unified processor model only after I started coding. The seemingly less
>> complex idea of a separate processing stage turned out to be more
>> complex once you got down to do it.
>
> This partly depends on your point of view!
In this case, my point of view was that of _implementing_ an xparse
with argument processing.
> In most cases,
> post-processing is not needed, so under any of the xparse-like
> implementations you end you with an arg spec. which doesn't look too
> intimidating:
>
> { O{default} m o m }
>
> or similar. I'd say that something like:
>
> { >{ \preprocessora \preprocessorb }O{default} m o m }
>
> is not too bad in comparison to
>
> { @{ \preprocessora \preprocessorb O{default} } @{} @{o} @{} }
For the record, the syntax I'd currently prefer (with one argspec per
line, for clarity) for that is
{
@{ @{\preprocessorb} @{\preprocessora} O{default} }
m
o
m
}
It was *always* the intention that m, o, s, etc. should be available as
argspecs! Back in 2008, I just /hadn't gotten around to/ do that in
xdoc2l3, so I used the functionally equivalent @{}, @{o}, @{S{*}}, etc.
in examples.
Lars Hellström
|
|
|