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

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: \coffin_new:c ? Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:31:51 +0000 text/plain (24 lines) On 06/03/2011 07:47, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > It's not 100 clear yet, but the initial plan at least for me is that > > coffins are a design-level construct. That means that \NewCoffin is the > > way to produce coffins - \coffin_new:N is there mainly to be wrapped up > > in a design-level function. > > > > Perhaps you might illustrate what you're doing at a 'concept' level? > > in my opinion it should be there, so I would call it an oversight. > > On document level, you are right, \NewCoffin should be enough but if you build > a package that involves coffins it is possible that the names of that coffin > are build from other structures, so that you wan to use :c to produce them When I rewrote the coffins code, I originally included "c" variants, but decided to leave them out pending seeing whether they were needed. I've no objection to them, I was just trying to avoid 'variant overkill'. Note that if you allow "c"-type names, then it's not just \coffin_new:N that needs variants. All of the 'code-level interface' functions should be done for consistency. This is the work of 5 minutes: shall I make the change? -- Joseph Wright