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  June 2012

LATEX-L June 2012

Subject:

Re: Separating out 'public' and 'internal' functions/variables in LaTeX3 modules

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Jun 2012 00:03:49 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Am 06.06.2012 23:08, schrieb Lars Hellström:
>> *Extending DocStrip*
>>
>> The 'two underscore' convention can of course be used directly in code.
>> However, as it extends the name of every code-level name, this may not
>> be desirable. To support this further, we have also explored the idea of
>> extending DocStrip such that a 'marker' can be used for internal
>> material, such that this can be replaced by the "__foo" part.
>>
>> The approach that we have taken for this is to use "@@" as the indicator
>> for internal code:
>>
>>    \@@_function:nn
>>    \l_@@_variable_tl
>>
>> To tell the extended l3docstrip program what is the appropriate
>> replacement for "@@", an additional guard-like line is also required:
>>
>>    %<@@=foo>
>>    \@@_function:nn   % Will be converted to \__foo_function:nn
>>    \l_@@_variable_tl % Will be converted to \l__foo_variable_tl
>
> Are these examples exact or handwaved? It looks as though @@ magically
> expands to either __foo or _foo depending on context!

magic :-)

The current implementation actually implements the following 
transformations while l3docstripping:

  __@@   -> __foo
   _@@   -> __foo
    @@   -> __foo

in that order. The first one could probably be dropped. I asked for it 
because I thought initially that even with the @@ one might want to write

\__@@_bar:nn

to indicate an internal function in a dtx file. But using this the code 
reads well enough with just

\@@_bar:nn

So that one cuold probably be dropped, although it doesn't hurt.

For variables \l_@@_bar_int just reads better than \l@@_bar_int which is 
why the second transformation is there.


>
>>    %<@@=bar>
>>    \@@_function:nn % Will be converted to \__bar_function:nn
>>
>>    %<@@=>
>>    \@@_function:nn % Will be extracted unchanged
>>
>> (It is important to note that this 'extended DocStrip' idea additional
>> to the idea of an 'internal' syntax.)
>
> An interesting benefit of this could be that if one steals a bit of code
> from some other package, then it will automatically be localised to
> one's own namespace.

It also allows you to directly execute the code even with @@ inside as 
long as you don't try to do this with more than one module name at the 
same time. For example I'm currently writing some code for a new module 
in a different window and write it directly into the .sty file and not 
bother about docstripping at all

> On the other hand, I fear that you may be opening
> up an avenue of feature creep here. If you introduce @@ today, then
> someone will probably want @1@ and @2@ in a year or so.

We intend to ship l3docstrip rather than extending docstrip.tex. I think 
such feature creep can be avoided.


> Also, as someone who is heavily using, and even porting
> (http://tcllib.sourceforge.net/doc/docstrip.html), docstrip with other
> languages, I must say I am more than a bit worried by the idea of making
> assignments to @@ part of the guard expression syntax; that feels like
> extending them into something they're not supposed to be.

open to debate I guess. What is important for me is that the 
transformation rule is part of the documentation which suggests some 
sort of guard notation. But yes, one could think about placing it in the 
docstrip.ins file instead.

We started out with

%<module=coffins>

but in the end the feeling was the simple <@@=foo> actually works better.

Also my expectation is that you do not turn those things one and off 
(except perhaps in the kernel once the currently separated files are 
partly or fully joined together).

So normally there will be a single line at the beginning stating the 
module name to be used in place of @@[log in to unmask]

> Other approaches I would find preferable to %<@@=foo> is to use %%%
> lines (as an homage to mft) or explicit commands in the .ins file; after
> all, most source files don't contain code for multiple l3-modules.

To be honest I don't like that much but perhaps this is something one 
just needs getting used to.

'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