Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:30:49 +0100
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original
> I know you've written about this before, but I think I've lost the
> post (or rather, never received it and read it through the archives at
> some stage) where you go into detail about your thoughts on this
I'll try to find them. Right now I'm hearing Berg's Wozzeck, so
I'm not sure I'n in the mood ;-).
But one of my concerns was related to the number of specifications:
> probably the time to discuss things again. I think the recent letters
> by Morten, Joseph and I on the different "argument specifications"
> showed that there are many different cases to consider, and also lots
> of scope for different solutions.
Many, too many. This might lead to a combinatorial explosion.
Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying
the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but
I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled).
(Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the
near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX,
to be honest.)