LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:29:02 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
On 30/06/2014 19:28, Joseph Wright wrote:
>> In order to address this, we have now added a new set of experimental
>> functions to l3candidates:
>>  - \tl_upper_case:n(n)
>>  - \tl_lower_case:n(n)
>>  - \tl_mixed_case:n(n)
> A question raised elsewhere
> ( is
> of course whether "tl" is the right place for such functions at all.
> It's arguable that they can be regarded a "text" functions, so perhaps a
> "text manipulation" module would be a better location. That does not of
> course preclude discussing the detail of how they should also work, but
> may be worth consideration. Feedback here also welcome!

One argument here is that *at present* it's not clear what might be a
'better' location for case changing, while the need for the
functionality is apparent and an implementation is doable 'now'. Thus we
might argue that adding to tl with the possibility of a (well-defined)
move to another module could occur at some stage in the future. This
approach avoids adding new modules which turn out to be poorly defined.

There is a tension there of course with 'stability': we are aiming not
to make changes without good reason, but at the same time are trying to
have have mechanisms which do allow for some change where this makes sense.
Joseph Wright