## 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: Monospaced Font

Subject:

Re: \begin{<env>} ... \end{<env>}

From:

Date:

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:20:13 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/signed

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (58 lines) , signature.asc (58 lines)
 Joseph Wright wrote: > Arno Trautmann wrote: >> My opinion about the \begin–\end: I don’t like it at all. >> ConTeXt uses \startenv – \endenv, which is a bit better. A perfect thing >> would be: \envstart – \envend. Reason: autocompletion works much better. >> Now I always have to type \begin{do to get \begin{document} as >> completion. With \documentstart it would only be \do . I don’t know >> if anybody here likes this, but Joseph asked for discussions… > > Interesting idea, and takes the best from what is about (ConTeXt, in > this case) and learns from it. So it should be :) > It seems pretty much a given that > LaTeX2e documents won't work "out of the box" with LaTeX3, so it is > certainly worth thinking about this type of change. > > Thinking where this takes us, something like: > > \latexstart What is this good for?… > \loadclass{article} > > \loadmodule{whatever-module} > > \documentstart > > Some text > > \itemizestart > \item An item > \item Another one > \itemizeend > > \documentend > > \latexend > > perhaps? Rather more ConTeXt-like than I'm used to, but also quite clear. Now that I read code not written by me, I notize a disadvantage: It’s much harder to distinguish macros from environments. Maybe \itemize_start   \item   \item \itemize_end might be better? cheers Arno