LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  January 2000

LATEX-L January 2000

Subject:

Re: template interfaces and what they mean

From:

Achim Blumensath <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:08:40 CET

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> main point is i would like you to think about is, what are the
> invariants of that interface, ie what can be assumed to be the same
> from one template to the next (within a type) and what can differ.
>
>  1) how much freedom has a template to interpret its arguments (ie data
>     passed to it from the document)?
>
>  2) what is the scope a template instance apply itself? is it
>     well-defined?
>
> let's tackle 1) first. Achim suggests that the pshape type should get
> two arguments those meaning should depend on the template. in my opinion
> this is likely to result in chaos.
>
> the main idea behind the template types is that

[...]

> so to make this work templates of the same type need to interpret data
> coming from the document (ie via arguments) in the same way. At best I
> see that they might be allowed to ignore it.

I propose the following rule:

  Templates of the same type must be exchangeable.

To be able to apply this rule each template type must have defined
semantics including a description of which parts of its behaviour are
"garanteed/essential" and which are left "undefined".

> To return to the pshape template: so I don't think it should get
> arguments that are interpreted differently by different templates.

Well, I said the "exact" meaning would depent on the template not that
the interpretation should be completely arbitrary. In terms of the
rule I presented above one could say that the semantic of a pshape
template is to set the shape of a paragraph. Obviously, different
instances can produce different shapes. Thus, exchanging instances
can result in a change of the shape. If two arguments are added
standing, say, for the horizontal and vertical deviation of the
shape from a rectangle, this doesn't matter. Exchanging instances
still results in a change of the shape.

> In fact for that particular template type I don't think it should
> get arguments at all.
>
> I see this template as something (again) to be used only as part of
> other templates to define very specialised shapes in certain layouts
> --- but shapes which are independent of of document data but exist in
> their own right.

When I wrote my suggestion I was thinking of packages like wrapfig and
picinpar. In those cases the type of the shape doesn't depend on the
document data but the exact dimension do.

> For example, I came recently across a very nicely formatted book whose
> Capter openings have all be done by having the first paragraph with a
> triangle like cutout that was part of the design for the chapter head.
> That's the kind of area where I see applications for pshape.
>
> In contrast, if one wants to provide commands that allow the user to
> directly manipulate the paragraph shape somehow (one example in a
> restricted sense being Initials) then this should not be done via
> the templates provided in xhj but by making use of the lower-level
> interface that comes with galley2.dtx

Agreed, so forget my suggestion.

> ===================================================================
>
> do you remember what the second abstract question was? No? Here is
> another rephrase:
>
>   to what elements should templates apply that do set parameters of
>   underlying algorithms (in some way or other)
>
> for example the "std" template of type justification sets the
> justification for all upcoming paragraphs of the galley (potentially
> at least) while the "single" template sets it only for the next. Achim
> suggested that not the template but the user should decide on the scope.
>
> Now I agree with him but who is the "user"? The user is the designer of
> the document class layout and if this "user" says that the first paragraph
> of a caption should have the first line centered and any following
> paragraphs should be justified without indentation then he can do this
> now by setting a
>
>  justification-setup =i
>
> key to the appropriate value. by making the (i agree) somewhat different
> feeling templates one and the same type I allowed for flexibility in
> design. In an earlier implementation I had two types but that resulted
> in either strange templates (making use of both) or in a lot of repitition,
> ie the need to have nearly identical templates differing only in one key
> since that key was of a different type.
>
> another way to look at it is to say that the "single" one is actually
> also setting all paragraphs in the galley (it sets the first to X and
> the rest to whatever was before X).
>
> yet another way is to get rid of "single" and implement what i called
> "complex" differently since what in practise will be needed are the
> instances from "std" and from "complex"

IMHO this design is, well, not optimal. I agreed that having two
different template type is ridiculus. But instead of having
separate instances for "single" and "std" it would be better to
have just one instance with an boolean argument specifying whether
to apply the template for the next or for all paragraphs.

Thus a class designer would have two parameters in his template

  initial-par-justification =i \ipj
  par-justification         =i \pj

and would say in the template body

  \UseInstance{\pj}{\True}
  \UseInstance{\ipj}{\False}

The reason I prefer this desing is that IMHO a justification template
consists of information about the formatting of a single paragraph.
To question to which paragraphs this formatting is applied is
independent. Each format does make sense either way. Thus in your
design one would have to define each instance twice. Once for
the "single" and once for the "std" case.

Achim
________________________________________________________________________
                                _                             | \_____/ |
    //  Achim Blumensath       | \  _                        \O/ \___/\ |
   //   [log in to unmask]   |-< /_\                       =o=  \ /\ \|
 \X/    (p^2 - m^2)\psi = 0    |_/ \_                        /"\   o----|
____________________________________________________________________\___|

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager