Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:48:30 +0100
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > A question raised elsewhere
> > (http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/16351207#16351207) is
> > of course whether "tl" is the right place for such functions at all.
> > It's arguable that they can be regarded a "text" functions, so perhaps a
> > "text manipulation" module would be a better location. That does not of
> > course preclude discussing the detail of how they should also work, but
> > may be worth consideration. Feedback here also welcome!
> One argument here is that *at present* it's not clear what might be a
> 'better' location for case changing, while the need for the
> functionality is apparent and an implementation is doable 'now'. Thus we
> might argue that adding to tl with the possibility of a (well-defined)
> move to another module could occur at some stage in the future. This
> approach avoids adding new modules which turn out to be poorly defined.
> There is a tension there of course with 'stability': we are aiming not
> to make changes without good reason, but at the same time are trying to
> have have mechanisms which do allow for some change where this makes sense.
the other concern that sticks in my mind, is frank suggesting
case-diddling isn't really stuff for the latex kernel.
does anyone know what context do? is there scope for joint work on a
standing on the edge and watching...