Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:31:41 +0100
<[log in to unmask]
> (message from Richard
Walker on Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:16:20 +1000)
> So instead of e.g. \chk_var_or_const:N we have \chk/var_or_const:N.
> Again: / _ : all have catcode 11.
Perhaps allowing _ as the separator and for use within the final names
is not ideal, although looking at your example above / looks too `hard'
a break to me, I can read \chk_var_or_const:N as one token but \chk/
looks too split off. Perhaps another idea would be to use _ as now, but
not use it within the final name, as in \chk_VarOrConst:N. Don't know.
As Frank commented earlier, it also makes a difference if you are
looking at it on screen rather than on paper.
> If _in your document_ you want to `import' the short names you might
I really don't think it helps to think of document level usage for this
kind of module. Although it does make sense to look at ways of using
different top level command names, I suspect any such top level
interface mechanism will need to be substantially different from the way
code at the programming levels is organised into modules.
. . . \mymacro . . .
This most reminds me of context. (Any context users on this list?)
I haven't really looked in detail what Context does here but have seen
Hans (the other one:-) demo it a few times. The Context kernel does not
directly define any top level user commands, instead that top level is
defined in a final customisation setup. In the case of context the main
aim is to have language specific command names. Such an interface could
possibly be extended to cater for more general renaming to avoid
Perhaps someone with more experience of context might like to say what
that system is doing, for comparison.