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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Bruno Le Floch <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:34:43 +0200
text/plain (33 lines)
On 8/5/12, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 05:16, Will Robertson wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012, at 9:53 PM, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>>
>>> Admittedly, none of the three "solutions" is great.  As Joseph notes,
>>> we've gone for a single line in the l3 source.  We could perhaps add
>>> \def\^^M{\unskip\space\ignorespaces} to the \begin{syntax} setup: this
>>> would allow
>>>
>>>    \cs{some_function_with_a_very_long_name:nnnnn} \
>>>      \Arg{first argument} \Arg{second argument} \
>>>      \Arg{third argument} \Arg{fourth argument} \
>>>      \Arg{fifth argument}
>>
>> I've been thinking for a while that having \obeylines in the syntax
>> environment (which predates my involvement on this code IIRC) has made
>> certain things rather awkward.
>>
>> It would be an annoying change to have to implement in our sources, but
>> what do you think about dropping \obeylines?
>>
>> -- Will
> Seems sensible to me: we've altered how we approach using this
> environment, and \obeylines is probably not that helpful.
> --
> Joseph Wright

I agree, we've moved towards using the active characters less and \cs,
\meta, \Arg more.  Perhaps there could be an option "syntax-active =
false" to completely disable active characters in the syntax blocks?

-- Bruno

ATOM RSS1 RSS2