Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:56:18 +0100
>> Until we actually have the basics of a new format,
A new format???
That sounds worrying as I am passing the message to the million+ everyday users of LaTeX that there will never again be a need for different 'formats' with all its technical and sociological problems, primarily because they are handy only for last century's technology levels.
So I hope we can have a consistent message on this.
Sent from a bar . . . maybe an iBar.
On 18 Jul 2013, at 09:02, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 17/07/2013 19:27, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>> Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@...> writes:
>>> At present I'm waiting to see what people thing of the code-level stuff.
>>> At the same time, I'm not sure about making package option processing
>>> too complex. The lesson I've learned is that keyval in options is
>>> governed by the LaTeX2e kernel: options are expanded, and checking for
>>> clashes doesn't 'know' about keyval. Thus I tend to think load-time
>>> options should really be limited to things that need to happen there,
>>> with later \<thing>setup to cover more complex option sets.
>> Is the behavior of package & class options expected to be different
>> (specifically, keyval-aware) in a LaTeX3 kernel? If so, would it be
>> appropriate to define \UseExplPackage et al. so that the future behavior can
>> be experimented with?
> Not really worthwhile. The way that the LaTeX2e kernel does option
> processing means that expansion/space stripping happens 'early'. As
> such, you can't alter it in a way that is easy. Look at the option
> keyval-patching code in xkeyval and kvoptions to see this: you have to
> pre-load an additional package before the one where you want 'new'
> effects. Until we actually have the basics of a new format, this isn't
> going to help.
> Joseph Wright