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:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:08:41 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (136 lines)

Lars,

 > > 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.

that makes two of us (prefering c). As to rigid view of compatibility:
perhaps. There is nothing really that allows us to enforce rigid compatibility
on semantics, other than documenting the semantics and asking people/template
writers to obey them (for their own good).

This is a similar situation like with the 2e idea of document
classes. article.cls defined a certain type of document class and to be able
to reuse a document written for it with another class the other class would
need to offer the same semantics. But there wasn't any way to enforce that, so
that we nowadays have a number of classes that are nearly article but not
quite (like handling the abstract env as part of the title or not)

So the best one can do is to carefully document the object type its mandatory
arguments and their semantics (and a list of standard named arguments and
their expected semantics) and to ask for any template that nominally
implements that object type to follow the spec.


 > 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.

agreed

 > 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 think for any named key explicitly mention with the object type as a
standard named key that should have its semantics documented with the document
type with the intention that this is binding for all templates of this object
type. Of course a template might decided to not use the key at all, but if
used the semantics should be as in the object type spec.

For additional keys they should then be specified on the individual templates

 > 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".

agreed



 > > 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.

agreed on the first not sure on the second point. The advantage of using the
last argument is clear, the disadvantage being that inside each template in
which you refer to a named key you potentially have different argument number,
eg in one type of template it will be \GetKey{foo}{#3} and in the next
\GetKey{bar}{#5} but perhaps that is less an issue

 > > 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.

agreed, it is probably best to do any inheritance explicitly when desired. As
long as the dictionary comes as an argument that is trivial to do.

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