LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML 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: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:36:03 +0000
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 (10 lines)
On 26/01/2011 13:19, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> I don't have any issue with element or elt (having been exposed to lisp long time ago) but my feeling is that "length" is rather a good name for the concept, but then we should use it in other places too and get rid of elt_count there.
> 
> For _nth I think _element is ok, but I'm not so sure why _item would be bad. Don't see that there would be a conflict with other "items" of LaTeX. In fact it is the same concept, so why choose different names?

We seem to have something of a consensus on this: 'length' and 'item'
seem to be the best choices.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2