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:

object type / instance arguments

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:36:37 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (144 lines)

I thought a bit more about the arguments brought forward by Lars about
supporting a kind of dictionary to pass arguments to instances.

With more complex object types I clearly can see the advantages of this
method, with more simpler types I'm not so sure though, partly because of the
overhead in processing. That makes me leaning towards a dual approach (also
suggested by Lars at one point if I remember correctly), ie have the most
important arguments mandatory but allow for an additional dictionary to be
passed along and queried as needed.

Thinking along those lines brings up a couple of questions:


What is the signature of an object type?
========================================

To recap, the idea of an object type is to describe the implementation level
interface an semantics of a certain set/type/class of objects with the idea
that if you have two different realizations/implementations for an object type
you can (ideally) exchange them with each other without compromising the
document content. E.g., more explicitly, if you have two different templates
for A-headings you can use either or in a document class design and with the
resulting document classes you can format the same set of documents
successfully.

Now, above I said "ideally" because a description like the above leaves a
certain gray area, where one can have different opinions on whether the
document content is changed or not or whether the result can be called
successful formatting. Examples: if you have written class which is like
"article.cls except that all headings are unnumbered, does that still fulfill
the criteria of not modifying the document content? - perhaps not, but it
certainly fulfills the criteria of being a class that successfully formats any
document written for the article class - well more or less, at least if your
class does something about resolving references. Or take a document that
specifies a "quote" to go with each A-head via such a dictionary. Is it okay
to use it in one design but ignore it in another and still claim both designs
implement the same object type?

Coming back to the question: which if the following should be the defined
behavior?

a) the object type defines the semantic of an object (of that type) including
   the semantics of its mandatory arguments. The optional dictionary is not
   considered and can be used in different ways by objects belonging to the
   same object type.

b) the dictionary is part of the definition of an object type, ie the keys it
   can contain and their semantics are defined by it, i.e., two objects only
   belong to the same object type if their semantics are the same on all levels

c) kind of in between: the object type can define the semantics of certain keys
   in which case all objects of this type have to support exactly that
   interpretation, however an object is free to accept/interpret additional
   keys.

Note that with b) and c) we do not rule out that a key is not being used in
the end, eg if there is a key "quote" to pass a quotation to an A-head
template that template could completely ignore and it would still be within
the bounds of interpreting the "quote" key as being a quotation for the
A-head. It would be out of bounds when it would instead require the key to be
named "quotation" or if it would use the value of the key for something else,
eg the running header (not very likely with that name, but ...)


How should the dictionary be specified?
=======================================

Basically I see two ways:

a) passing the dictionary in a mandatory argument, e.g., the first or the last
one, for example like

  \foo {...} {...}
       {
        \ToDictionary{key1}{val1}
        \ToDictionary{key2}{val2}
        ...
        \ToDictionary{keyn}{valn}
       }

b) setting up the dictionary prior to calling the instance, e.g.

  \ToDictionary{key1}{val1}
  \ToDictionary{key2}{val2}
  ...
  \ToDictionary{keyn}{valn}
  \foo {...} {...}

I wouldn't want to directly use property lists from the expl3 language at that
point for two reasons:

 - on the level the instances are used (ie the designer level and above I
   don't like to mix in expl3 syntax

 - setting up a property list using expl is fairly inefficient as the commands
   need to deal with updating keys if the already exist and that takes a lot
   of unnecessary time as we are starting from scratch here


last question for now (as this email is already too long):


Should there be some inheritance of dictionaries?
=================================================

If the dictionary is not fully tied to the object type (ie case a) or c) in
the first question) we have two different possibilities to specify the
dictionary behavior:

a) the dictionary is build directly before or when an instance is called and
   it is cleared when one gets to \AssignKeys in the template code

b) the dictionary definitions obey grouping and this way can be passed from
   one  instance to the next, e.g., the dictionary coming with a heading can
   be made available to the instance implementing the toc entry (thus author,
   abstract, what-have-you that came in the dictionary to the heading is also
   available in the toc for inspection

of course, instead of automatic inheritance one might be better off if it is a
conscious decision in the template whether or not its dictionary is being made
available for later.

For example if a) gets implemented that could be done as follows:

  \ToDictionary fills \l_template_dict_prop

  \AssignKeys copies \l_template_dict_prop to \l_template_current_dict_prop
  and clears \l_template_dict_prop

  The template code could then query \l_template_current_dict_prop for keys it
  cares about and it could also prefill \l_template_dict_prop with key/val
  pairs or (with all of \l_template_current_dict_prop) prior to calling some
  other instance code.

What can't be done this way is something like a template for a list makes its
dictionary available to all objects in its body, for that one would need an
implementation that is using a single \l_template_dict_prop variable to
hold the dictionary for all objects (which obeys grouping and \ToDictionary
only adds to it and no clearing happens (other by grouping levels))


thoughts anyone?

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