## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Proportional Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

> Michael J. Downes wrote:
> >In my opinion, there has been so far too much discussion and not
> >enough substantial work with the published expl3 proposal. I do not
> >say it is flawless, but I do say it is a waste of time to rehash it
> >endlessly without any real work being done.  When someone can post to
> >CTAN a working package of nontrivial size using the current proposed
> >conventions, then I will be ready to listen to their opinions with
> >respect.
>

Hans Aberg writes:

>   So, if I was allowed to interfere, I would suggest that the names should
> be named \tex/foo_bar:<argspec>, with "_" a word separator and "/" a module
> separator. This way the L3PL team can forget about higher module
> abstractions for now, but on the same time ensuring that the L3PL does not
> block that the modules concept being introduced fully at some later point.

i can only agree with Michael that the discussion on this abstract
level on the wonderful world of modules and their usefulness without
anything to back them up with gets very inefficient and i like to
challenge you once more

- to actually produce a working prototype within TeX (and with
prototype i don't mean three or four lines of code which show how to
parse such syntax but a selfcontained format at least on the level of
complexity of plain TeX that actually implements your ideas --- my
strong suspicion backed by years of practical experience is that you
will find it impossible)

- or to actually use the L3PL on a substancial bit of code before
making a lot of suggestions how to change it drastically

it is not as if this is the result of people working who have never
heard of modern computer languages in fact there have been some
distinguished computer scientists who had a large influence on what
you see right now.

>   If "/" does not prove to be suitable, then it can easily be changed to
> something else at some later point.

with absolutely the same argument i vote for keeping it the way as it
is. the specification says \<module>_<funcname>:<argspec> and it is as
trivial as changing / to something else to replace \\[a-zA-Z]+_ by
\\[a-zA-Z]+/ and i'm happy to do this if there is a need for this, eg
if you prove me wrong and your module/submodule mechanism can be made
workable in practise or if after experiencing with the code i got
enough people (that used it) saying that they feel \foo/bar:nn is
better readable to them than \foo_bar:nn

frank