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  November 2009

LATEX-L November 2009

Subject:

Re: an object type for heading commands

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:17:23 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

Lars Hellström writes:

 [snip]

continuing where I left off last night

 > An argument for separating these functions is that doing something 
 > innovative in one of the three areas is not making you more likely to 
 > do something innovative in the two others.
 >  E.g. a designer might need 
 > to commision a new template for headings because the design does 
 > something that cannot be achieved simply by setting parameters in the 
 > standard template, but it's only the "heading on page" that needs this. 

I was wondering about this. Is it true? In case of the toc I would say no:
all a heading object does is passing data into a toc sub-system and the
formatting of that data is then controlled by templates for that part

And the same is true for the running head.

The only thing a heading object should do beside receiving document input for
toc or running head, is potentially reconstructing the data that it passes on
(but not manage its formatting).

Of course it is a grey area here, especially as in LaTeX we are all used to
mix document structure with formatting data, e.g. from the examples that
Ulrich gave: we do add \\ to a heading to force a line break somewhere (which
is effectively tying the document to the used formatting) but then we clearly
need to pass something else to the toc as we don't necessarily want the \\
there as well or not in the same place.

but abstractly: say for a running head the template may have a specification
possibility to say what should go into the running head, ie the title text + a
number or just the title text or, the title this some other data but the
heading would not describe the formatting (which would belong to some page
style object receiving that data).

so in summary I don't think the separation here is necessary or worth while


 > Creating the new template then becomes much more complicated if it also 
 > has to deal with the technicalities of running heads and TOCs. One 
 > might also want to combine one package's nice "heading on page" 
 > features with another package's feature to include author names in the TOC.

actually I think we have to drop the believe that such packages will exist -
they don't in that form exist in 2e which has a simpler model, and will not
work in the l3 model either.

What I mean is that there will be no packages that enhance existing templates
by adding something to the templates. What you will have is packages that
offer new templates for the same object type with different features.

just like titlesec is a reimplementation of LaTeX's \@startsection template
(if you want to call that a template) but there is no package that adds
"quotes" to headings written with titlesec. There is only a package that
replaces the chapter commmand with a new one that supports quotes on top 



 > > Unless you start overloading the arguments in a way that \NoValue for a
 > > TOC title means use the main title for TOC while an empty TOC title mean
 > > do not use one, or something like that.
 > 
 > [Shiver] Only a last resort.

no not :-) I guess we agree here


 > >  > > what else is missing or which of the above aren't sensible in the
 > >  > > first place?
 > >  > 
 > >  > One might consider making one argument a keyval dictionary and collect 
 > >  > many of the above in that instead. 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > that would be a document level syntax decision, ie how to write a heading
 > > command in your document.
 > 
 > No, I meant it as an *implementation level* syntax.

oh, I see what you're getting at
 > 
 > For commands that do complicated things (and it certainly looks as 
 > though the "make heading" instances fall in this category), it is 
 > generally a fact of life that the number of things you /might/ want to 
 > specify as arguments to them grows much faster than the number of 
 > things you would /typically/ specify as arguments to them; maybe a 
 > typical call has use for $\sqrt{n}$ arguments if there are $n$ 
 > arguments in total; for e.g. $n=16$ that would come out as $12$ you 
 > don't care about. Having a separate mandatory argument for each of them 
 > quickly becomes unfeasible, as one pretty much has to look up the 
 > specification every time writing a call just to remember which order 
 > the arguments were in.
 > 
 > A better approach, following *nix command line tools, is to have 
 > *options* -- and in particular options that can take values, like 
 > --unified=3, --src-prefix=foo/bar/, or --pretty=full (to mention 3 of 
 > several dozen options of git-diff-tree). TeX doesn't support variadic 
 > commands that well however, so the natural way for us to implement 
 > "options with values" is to have a single mandatory argument whose 
 > value is a dictionary mapping option names to values, and then some 
 > other mandatory arguments for the few things you really need to specify 
 > in almost every call.

well, it may be something to think about. but a few comments here

 - an open-ended interface is also meaning that you will likely end with a
   babel like confusion (and I don't mean 2e babel but just the biblical
   problem) i.e., everybody is dreaming up new values that are then not
   supported anywhere else etc etc ... and out of the window goes and
   transparency in terms of replacing one design by the next

 - let's first see if we ever end up with huge object types. I don't get
   believe it. the heading might be the most complex thing we ever see in this
   respect and even here I guess what we end up with is less than 6

 - one of the reasons to limit ourselves to mandatory args initially was
   speed, but another one (and we reflected on that one) was that it would
   force us to keep the semantics simple.

I still think that this is basically the right decision, but we'll see. if we
do turn up with object types that we have to limit but don't really want to
than yes that needs revisiting. As it stands now, the object types that I came
across require a small number of input supplies the biggest ones are those for
headings and toc entries. Of course, abstractly it is easy to envision an
object that requires 20 different input supplies and that formats them
somehow, especially in database query -> format type of situations (such as
your example with bibtex). but the question is: would/should that still be
formatted then with a template model? or should there be some preprocessing
through some different method.

'night
frank

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