LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
"Wilson, Peter R" <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:43:34 -0700
text/plain (35 lines)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hensel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Invitation for discussion: My suggestion for a
> LaTeX3 syntax
> Finally, here it is:
> Martin

    I read your proposal with interest.

    It seems that although you have problems with the way TeX handles spaces your proposed solution is to leave that as it is (i.e., your C-1).

    Your other major concern appears to be "the number of arguments of \command{} [also environments] is unknown (the last {...} may well be normal text)." However, I fail to see how your proposal addresses that. Using named_arg=value still requires an author to know about the arguments, what they do, and which are required. Additionally, authors will also have to remember the names of the arguments. I feel that you are merely introducing unnecessary  overhead with no gain.

    I also take issue with your basic premise that authors are put off by (La)TeX syntax, and by implication having to learn commands and their arguments. Some no doubt would find a GUI easier but that is an old chestnut that doesn't need any more verbiage spilled about it.

Peter W.

Dr Peter R. Wilson
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
PO Box 3707, MS 2R-97, Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Tel: (206) 544-0589, Fax: (206) 544-5889
Email: [log in to unmask]
Any opinions expressed above are personal;
they shall not be construed as representative of any organisation.