LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Chris Rowley <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:01:22 +0000
text/plain (42 lines)
> >
> >- In the template documentation, the question is raised whether a
> >  template type declaration should expect an argument containing a
> >  description of the semantics. I'm strongly in favour of this idea and
> >  would even suggest that all declarations get a mandatory argument for
> >  storing descriptive information, i.e. also those for templates and
> >  instances. (Together with another one for a one-line short description
> >  this would make automatic documentation of designs possible and
> >  besides would encourage the programmer or designer to spell out their
> >  ideas to themselves before coding.)
> I tend to disagree. There already is a standard (doc package / .dtx
> sources) in the LaTeX world which is far more expressive than what one can
> achieve through mere command arguments, hence it would be counterproductive
> to try to force another level of (lower quality) documentation into the
> actual commands.

Not necessarily lower, just different,
since this is part of a new LaTeX, which may have a programming
environment associtaed with it one day; and this environment may be
able to make use of some structured on-line brief info fields.

This could be implemnted as above or as below.

> A better idea would be to device a set of doc commands adapted to the needs
> of template documentation, and promote the use of those.

More stuff to rmemeber?

> A "smart editor"
> should use the sources (.dtx) as reference for command definitions, not the
> "executables" (.sty and such).

These may also merge since it is not clear that much is saved these
days by stripping the comments.