## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Proportional Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

```Hans writes:
>   Why bother about voting if you are the man? :-)

you may be right that this is like voting with my kids (they have two
each and the parents have one)

> >..the specification says \<module>_<funcname>:<argspec> and it is as
> >trivial as changing / to something else to replace \\[a-zA-Z]+_ by
> >\\[a-zA-Z]+/ and i'm happy to do this if there is a need for this,
>
>   Clearly not as it excludes those who want to experiment with submodules...

com'on. with a spec as is you can experiment with modules if you
really want to as easily as with some other. just introduce / as a
sub-module separator in the first word. you may be right that it would
look perhaps look ugly but it would work without any problem and would
prove either me or you wrong.

so \foo_bar:nn would be module foo function bar
and \foo/baz_bar:nn would be module foo submodule baz function bar

so what? (and it doesn't look so bad actually)

just to change all the files to some new convention takes some effort
which can be better spend. at the moment at least!

> > eg
> >if you prove me wrong and your module/submodule mechanism can be made
> >workable in practise or if after experiencing with the code i got
> >enough people (that used it) saying that they feel \foo/bar:nn is
> >better readable to them than \foo_bar:nn
>
> ...and then nobody will bother developing it. :-)

too bad, but i claim it is a red hering. it is simply easier to