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 1998

LATEX-L June 1998

Subject:

Re: l3 function names

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:51:13 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (254 lines)

Javier

 > I've rewritten some of my own macros -- it's not difficult and...
 > they work! That and the Frank's message convinced me that the argument
 > specifiers could be sometimes a good thing.

delighted to hear that (we come to the but's later :-) this was my
hope that people really give it a try before discussing grander
solutions --- after all any solution has to work in practice and that
is in a small model office example easy, but usually not so easy in
real life.

i come to the ideas by Hans et al on more general schemes in a
different message (they are not forgotten, but i'm currently have
difficulties to find the time for this type of work and typing with a
small child on my lap is ...)

 > But...

now for the but's :-)

let me first say that i agree that the current state of that language
is a mess but not as large a mess as it could be and was in the past.

i'm going through your arguments now commenting on each in turn which
will give a somewhat incorrect picture as i may tire down near the end
but ...

 > >From l3basics:
 > "\let:NwN
 >  \let:NN
 >  \let:Nc
 >  \let:cN
 >  \let:cc"
 >
 > That looks pretty, but it's misleading because it suggests a symmetry
 > which
 > in fact does not exist. \let:NwN expands to itself while the remainder
 > does
 > not.

\let:NwN is bad and should not be there as it is the primitive which
should probably not used at all or if so for certain parts where speed
or bootstraping is important clearly marked as the primitve. this is
historical as many other things and should be carefully weeded out.

 > Another example (from "l3expand"):
 > "\exp_args:Nx
 >  \exp_args:Nc"
 > The first one cancels kerning, but the second one does not.

true and a fact of life (within TeX but hopefully not within etex or
some other successor). i guess the bottom line here is really that one
would need to state that any command using and "x" arg is
non-expandable and has side-effects like killing kerning.

this is not different to coding the same manually in your macros. if
your macros really need the functionality of "x" then you're sunk as
far as kerning etc is concerned.

so to me this is more a general problem of TeX not of this interface
and only needs proper documenting.

 > When there are some variants, which is the command with the
 > actual definition? More important: How do I remember which
 > variants are available? If I write \def_long:cpn and
 > then I realize that this command should be global I will
 > tempted to write \gdef_long:cpn.   It does not exist!   Personally,
 > I don't feel like learning the available variants of the commands.
 > I find preferable a set of basic commands and a set of modifying
 > commands as explained below.

well... :-) i agree that i don't like to learn what commands are
available either. so the bottom line should be that all commands are
available. your suggestion is that one has a set of basic commands +
modifiers. in some sense this is what we provide as well. only that we
think as far as modifications in argument handling they should be
presented as a single command.

our approach was (and is at the moment) to provide a "reasonable"
selection (what that is is certainly not yet defined :-) and in
addition have a standard mechanism to provide *any* other variant in a
unique way so that such variants can be provided by any package that
needs them without the danger that some other package overwrite this
meaning.

as for \gdef_long:cpn (which has a questionable name in the first
place): if this does not exist this is simply a bug in the language as
this is not a variant but a basic form.


 > Renaming commands
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 > Suppose someone is determined to study the internal latex code with the
 > new naming scheme. He take the TeXbook and... surprise! The latex code is
 > absolutely unintelligible. I thing the primitive (and maybe plain)
 > command names should be preserved with perhaps some minute changes; eg.
 > \_box instead of \box (you may think of that as "no module").

first of all the basic commands are unchanged availabale all starting
\tex_... (with the idea that perhaps \etex_... or \pdftex_... thingies
exist one day.

second, i fear that this surprise is something a "someone" is in
for. if we would have this language (sorry, some much better one but
in a similar spirit) one day then it should come with something
comparable to the TeXbook but for this language. even now for most
people the latex source is not easy (if at all) to deciper if your
only source of reference would be the TeX book (assuming you look at
latex.ltx and not the 1000 pages of documentation that exist somehow
within the latex distribution).

 > However, I think it's not a good idea to change at all the meaning of
 > those well established names. If \box has another meaning it could
 > lead to confusion.

only if you think that plain or initex TeX is what you should learn
first. In my option this has lead to a lot of problems within the TeX
world: precisely that Don never bothered to really distinguish between
the basic language of TeX and his private format build on top of it.

if the bootstrap of something like L3PL is short and painless you
could start from learning the language itself and nothing else.  it
does clearly keep the primitives that should be enough. in other words
i think this is more something for old programmers like you and me
being a *short-term* problem but that should'nt guide us.



 > Argument specifiers
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 > >From expl3:
 > "N Single token (unlike n, the argument must not be sorrounded by
 > braces.)"
 >
 > In fact N stands for:
 > - a token without braces (\def:Npn)
 > - a token with (or without) braces (\def_new:Npn)
 > - a brace (!) (\tokensi\exp_after:NN{\command})

i somewhere have a quote by Leslie Lamport on the quality of Don as an
alorithm person compared to his quality as a language designer :-)

so yes, quite right. any suggestions?

let's interpret that a bit carefully:

the language definition as stated above says "N" not allowed to have
braces!

this is part of the language spec only that the interpreter doesn't
check for it. the real problem is that we sort of try to bann some the
the really nasty parts of TeX but on the other hand can't really leave
them out as on some levels we need them to make things work.

again, any suggestions?

 > \let:NN{\arg1}{\arg2} is particularly amusing because the first N is
 > \arg1 and the second one is { with an unmatched brace.

indeed. but then you could argue, garbage in garbage out, ie as this
isn't correct input output might be anything. but i know if i argue
this way then you give me

\let:NN{\arg2

which should then work but doesn't either. so????

....drawing board ?

 > I think three ideas are being mixed:
 > - How arguments are read:
 >   * A single token without braces
 >   * A single token with or without braces
 >   * A token list (with braces)
 > - How argument are expanded:
 >   * No expansion
 >   * One level expansion
 >   * Full expansion
 > - Conversion from a string to a token
 > (Actually, in my titlesec package I need expand a certain command
 > exactly three times, no less, no more.)

agreed. and probably more is mixed. partly this is historical (for
example the letters used) partly this is to try solving what you have
and what you have to compile into (unfortunately).

how would you distangle this?

 > If specifiers rules are not very, very, very clear it could be interpreted
 > in a wide variety of ways by developpers, making the code even more
 > unintelligible. I've devised some other specifier schemes but
 > inconsistencies
 > seems reluctant to disappear (except if a score of specifiers are used).

not sure i understand that sentence. did you mean you found it hard to
find something that works better without running into different
problems?  (that's what we found)

we would certainly welcome suggestions---this is a working draft and
as we say by no means anything that is present as the best and final
thoughts on the subject, though it is true that we have put a lot of
thoughts into it and thrown away many (worse) attempts.

 > Now imagine that there is no : notation and we use the l3expand set
 > of tools. The code will no longer be cluttered with specifiers and in the
 > few places where something unusual is necessary the code will remain
 > readable.
 > For instance (from "expl3"):
 >   \exp_args_Oc \glet \g_reserved_a_tlp \l_current_font_shape_tlp
 > and
 >   \exp_args_cO \seq_test_in {sym#3} \l_group_seq

well, my experience is that having the number of arguments clearly
attached to a command makes things much more readable than not having
it (ie \seq_test_in:nn compared to \seq_test_in) --- after getting
used to it this was a very helpful feature in reading code by others.


 > Undescore in names
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 > Changing the _ catcode prevents from using explicit subscript characters.
 > I think there are better candidates: "other" character except =, <, >,
 > . (sadly), , (ie, comma), - and +. (Namely /, !, ?, : (already used), ;,
 > @, |...)

we experimented a lot with various chars and the final conclusion was
that \foo_bar:nnn or \foo-bar:nnn is about to be the most readable.

i think we originally had the hyphen instead of the _ (can't remember
why that got changed)

we really tried a lot of variations but personally dind't find any of
them as useful as what we finally settled on.

my personal feeling always was that in some fonts (ie when printed)
the _ was not the best choice but that it worked very good on the
terminal.

as for the _ not being available as an explicit subscript:

we don't consider this significant as we think that this should be
done this way anyway. the few places where you really need a subscript
in a macro you can as well use some slightly more complicated way (in
plain TeX this would be \sb)

the - is less good in this regard as you need it in units within your
code much more often (think that that was one of the reasons why we
finally settled for the current letters).

thanks for all the comments (hope to get more)
good 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