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: object type / instance arguments

From:

Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:16:27 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (180 lines)

Frank Mittelbach skrev:
> 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.

Yes, that's the usual approach, in my non-TeX experience: use 
positional arguments (which in (La)TeX translates to mandatory 
arguments) for things that anyway have to be specified in (almost) 
every call, but use named arguments ("options" with values) for things 
that wouldn't be specified in a typical call. Then the general 
syntactic capabilities of (La)TeX suggest that the best way to handle 
the latter type of argument is to wrap all of them (for a specific 
"command") up as a dictionary.

> Thinking along those lines brings up a couple of questions:
> 
> 
> What is the signature of an object type?
> ========================================
> 
[snip]
> 
> 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.

I'd prefer (c), but I'd also like to remark that you seem to presume a 
rather rigid view of compatibility here; in RFC-speak, I get the 
impression that you're thinking in terms of MUST and SHALL, even though 
much of the material covered would perhaps be better suited by SHOULD 
or MAY.

Some general principles:

1. It's a good thing if the standard heading object type declaration 
comes with with a comprehensive list of "standard" key names for 
template authors to make use of when appropriate, but it's no disaster 
if something rather common should happen to be missing from this list; 
later releases can always make amendments.

2. If the value associated with a key is not simply supposed to be of 
type "some piece of text"[*], then it MUST be specified what the type 
of that data is. E.g., if the "author" key is generally an 
\and-separated list of author names, then whatever authority is 
specifying the "author" key MUST be clear about this. For a key as 
basic as "author", that authority would probably be (the documentation 
for) the xpackage defining the "heading" object type, but for other 
keys it could be (the documentation of) the template that makes use of 
this key, or (ditto) the package/class defining the user level commands 
that includes it in the dictionary.

[*] I find it an interesting question whether the basic "some piece of 
text" should allow \par tokens or not---not because of requiring macros 
to be \long, but because I suspect many objects will want to control 
the paragraph structure. But maybe objects that need to keep text in 
restricted horizontal mode should rather use some general mechanism to 
turn \par (and friends) off?

3. One shouldn't specify something if one doesn't have a good 
understanding of what that specification should say. It's much easier 
to add a specification for a key at version .2 or .3 than to admit at 
version .3 that "the spec we've had for this since version .0 is 
basically useless, so from now on we'll do it like this instead".


> 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}
>        }

I think this is the way to go. For objects, I furthermore think it 
should typically be the last argument, since this makes it easier to 
visually connect the other arguments with the underlying command, i.e., 
it improves code readability.

> b) setting up the dictionary prior to calling the instance, e.g.
> 
>   \ToDictionary{key1}{val1}
>   \ToDictionary{key2}{val2}
>   ...
>   \ToDictionary{keyn}{valn}
>   \foo {...} {...}

This opens up the gate to side-effect hell, IMO. Keeping this kind of 
mechanism as "purely functional" as possible should be a goal, because 
it tends to work better in the end.

> 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

OK.

Re: efficiency: My experience is that one can have TeX do quite 
extensive processing without slowing things down much *provided one 
does it in the mouth*. (I don't understand quite why that would be, but 
did some timing to confirm it in particular cases for fontinst v1.913.) 
A set of workable semantics for a fully expandable
   \DictionaryGet{<key>}{<dictionary>}{<default>}
command would be:

1.  \DictionaryGet{#1}{\ToDictionary{#2}{#3}}{#4}
   fully expands to the full expansion of #3 if the full
   expansion of #1 is equal to the full expansion of #2,
   and to the full expansion of #4 otherwise; probably
   equivalent to
     \str_if_eq:xxTF{#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}
   (or would that be \str_if_eq:nnTF?).

2.  \DictionaryGet{#1}{\ToDictionary{#2}{#3}#4}{#5}
   is after full expansion equivalent to
     \DictionaryGet{#1}{\ToDictionary{#2}{#3}}{
       \DictionaryGet{#1}{#4}{#5}
     }

3.  \DictionaryGet{#1}{}{#2}
   is after full expansion equivalent to #2.

The trickiest thing to do in TeX3 is the test for key equality, and I 
believe there has been discussions about newer engines having 
primitives that simplify this. (Not having to go via 
\expandafter\string\csname<key-name>\endcsname to sanitize key names is 
a good first step, although not essential.)


> 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:

I think dictionary processing should be a generic functionality, rather 
than tied in with instance invokation.

As for inheritance, the dictionary semantics sketched above make it 
trivial to override or provide defaults for keys in a parent 
dictionary: just prepend or append respectively the necessary 
\ToDictionary items to the base dictionary.

Lars Hellström

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