LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:07:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
Hello all,

The recent question about macro names got me thinking about how
environments should be implemented in LaTeX3.  I think I've seen this
mentioned briefly somewhere, but not really worked through.

My thinking is that, although using \<env> ... \end<env> is convenient,
it is probably not the best way to (1) keep user and internal macros
separate and (2) to show what is going on.  I'd therefore imagine a
"virtual" module begin used for all of the \begin/\end names, something

\envs_<env>_begin:w % Seems easiest here to use :w

That means that the business with \end... is removed from command
creation much clearer) and that there is no possibility of accidentally
using an environment-starting command without \begin.

Of course, this is still "some way off", but it seems worth thinking
about in the wider context of refactoring expl3 and discussing keeping
user function names under control.
Joseph Wright