LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:02:06 +0930
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Hello,

I just did a bunch of regexps on the expl3 bundle to standardise the  
markup used to document the syntax for functions. So no more
   "{" <xyz> "}"
with varying amount of whitespace; it's now all
   \Arg{xyz}

Standardising strings like "true code", "cs", "arg", and so on would  
also be useful, but I haven't done that yet.

I'm been trying to think of a "better" way to do this documentation,  
since in many cases the syntax is identical or obvious from the  
function spec itself. I mean, writing
   \xyz_foo:nnTF
then
   "\xyz_foo:nnTF" \Arg{arg1} \Arg{arg2} \Arg{true code} \Arg{false  
code}
is rather redundant.

I don't have a good solution in mind, though.

If you've got any dormant thoughts about how the documentation of  
source3 could be improved, let's talk about it. Of course, actually  
adding in more words (and more commas from Chris) would certainly help  
a lot, too.

Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2