LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

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

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

Print Reply
"Allred, Sean" <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:23:46 -0400
text/plain (2459 bytes) , text/html (3552 bytes) , example.tex (3591 bytes) , (16 kB)
I've drawn up a syntax proposal
<> (as
an Org file) on GitHub:

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…


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]:
> --
> Sean Allred

Sean Allred