Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:23:46 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/mixed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I've drawn up a syntax proposal
<https://gist.github.com/vermiculus/d8ac080f3f8c7ec2bed6#file-idea-org> (as
an Org file) on GitHub:
https://gist.github.com/vermiculus/d8ac080f3f8c7ec2bed6#file-idea-org
I'm attaching the Org file itself and the (tangled) example syntax for
those of you who use Gnus or a similar client. I've managed to *completely*
screw up my environment as far as my own email goes, unfortunately…
Best,
Sean
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Sean Allred <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> There was recently a conversation on TeX.SX [1] between (mainly) Joseph
> Wright and myself. Please see that site for the full conversation that
> prompted this.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of the template idea. It is a good system
> and I don't want it to see unnecessary change.
>
> Disclaimer to the disclaimer: it's the only design management paradigm
> that I've come into contact with in regards to TeX. :)
>
> I'd like to raise attention to a possible issue with xtemplate's
> design. Currently, an 'object' can receive no more than nine arguments
> per TeX's syntax limitations: you cannot refer to a tenth argument in a
> macro definition. That is,
>
> \DeclareObject { foo } { 10 }
>
> will fail. In TeX terms, this makes total sense. You cannot have more
> than nine mandatory arguments for any single macro---that's just the way
> it is. But speaking in terms of design, there are instances where such
> an object can have more than nine arguments. In reality, this is the
> decision of the document designer. There should be no such limitation
> on the design.
>
> I'll refer you to the original post for Joseph's full answer, but his
> suggestion is, in my opinion, a very appropriate one: going for a
> completely key--value interface on the design layer (note: not the
> author layer). It would certainly remove the limitation on the number
> of mandatory qualities an object may have. It would also seem to be
> more befitting of the verbose clarity of the design layer to do this.
>
> I'd like to call for thoughts on the topic. Again, I strongly recommend
> you read Jospeh's response to my question [1]. I recognize that the
> premise of the question might be flawed---in this instance (no pun
> intended), it would likely be more appropriate to create a template with
> all of the 'extras'---but the concern is valid and genuine.
>
> All the best,
> Sean
>
> [1]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/196285
>
> --
> Sean Allred
>
--
Sean Allred
|
|
|