## 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: Modules

From:

Date:

Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:19:44 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (29 lines)
 At 14:58 +0100 98/06/25, Philip Taylor (RHBNC) wrote: >>> I guess there will be a command called \tex_def or \tex/def or something, >>> which one can use. > >Indeed, that was my very point : David was suggesting that \def could >be made inaccessible by the format; I argued that all the while TeX lacks >the equivalent of PostScript's "bind", primitives which are used by >maos defined in the format source and which must be accessible to >the user code can never be made totally inaccessible. You can "hide" >them but you can't remove them, so why bother even to hide them if an astute >programmer can work his way around the hiding mechanism?   I think the idea should be to help indicating objects proper use. >(the earlier proposal to use commercial-at is just one way of hiding such > things, neither better nor worse (in this context) than any other mechanism).   For use with modules, my suggestion is that @ should be used for indicating that a command is "private" or "protected", that is not for external use of that module.   So the command should then be named \tex/def and not \tex/@def, as some other module is going to use it, like other modules defining \/new.   Hans Aberg                   * Email: Hans Aberg                   * Home Page:                   * AMS member listing: