LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

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

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

Print Reply
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:11:59 +0100
text/plain (31 lines)
Paul Thompson writes:
 > The optional argument thing could be better handled by using named arguments.  
 > So, for \parbox, which has optional and mandatory arguments, we currently have 
 > \parbox[pos][height][inner-pos]{width}{text}
 > This is mindlessly confusing in many cases.  Why not have 
 > \parbox{pos=t,height=something,innerpos=t,width=something}{text}
 > The use of named arguments is vastly superior to positional arguments, 
 > especially when optional arguments can be specified.  

ah, the old argument between verbosity an ability to remember. Don't get me
wrong, I side with you on that one Paul, but there are times where I prefer

In any case this is one of the reasons why we worked hard on separating the
different layers so that a clean replacement of top-level syntax is always
being possible and easy. In that respect xparse is nothing other than
providing one such interface (resembling the LaTeX2e one, but generalized) as
an example, but it was never meant at "the interface" for a future LaTeX

But it is, in my opinion, a good start while everything is happening on top of
the 2e context anyway. and for a while at least this is where the expl
language and anything built from it will live.