## 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

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:

 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

Advanced Options

#### Options

 Log In Get Password Search Archives Subscribe or Unsubscribe