I think there are two concerns, the logical (keeping the code straight,
so different chunks of code do not clash), and how to make this workable
and useful to those who use it, both developers and users.
For the logical part, I think that module names should always be long,
unless there is some technical reason against, like TeX does not like it.
But I think TeX does not bother so much; it replaces long names by a short
internal macro representation, I think.
Then one may discuss how long the long names should be: Certainly, one
cannot diminish the number of module separators (like "/" in these
discussions), because they tell something about the logical structure. But
it is possible to let the module named "environment" have names starting
"envir/" by simply letting the command \environment/ expand
\environment/<command name> to \envir/<command name>. But then the module
name "envir" cannot be used.
Similarly, the module named "environment" should not be required be in a
file named like that; if one wants to specify a special file or file
position, there should be command doing this. (Such command could be made
to be platform independent between say UNIX, MacOS and MSOS if there is
another command telling which platform it is.)
At 16:31 +1000 98/06/22, Richard Walker wrote:
>1. Macro/symbol names should follow a consistent scheme, be easy to
>remember and use. Hence `long' names.
>2. I was addressing the problem of keeping format file size and
>control sequence space requirements to a minimum. This has been one
>of the stated aims of the project. Hence `short' names. Is this no
>longer a concern? Is it OK if all macro names are thirty or more
>characters long? If so, dump the short names altogether, and stick
>with the long names. We use smart editors.
So here, they way I see it, the long names (1) are only used really in
order to keep the code straight and avoid code clashes. The user
(preferably also developers) should only need to use short names by various
of simplifying schemes; this is (2) then. But non-local names should expand
to long names.
When developing the simplifying schemes (2), I do not know how to do it
for the simple reason that TeX is too tricky to program. One can simply not
invent some nice general schemes, then sit down, program it in TeX and hope
it is going to work. Generalities is evidently not Knuth's strong side.
So (2) must be developed together with (1), so that the two cooperate.
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
* Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>