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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  July 1998

LATEX-L July 1998

Subject:

Re: First experience with xr under L3PL

From:

Richard Walker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:55:46 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

Frank Mittelbach writes:
 > > The rest seems OK . . . .
 >
 > what a relieve :-)

On closer inpsection you also need this somewhere:
\tlp_new:Nn \l_xr_line_tlp {}

So as we have seen there is a Fortran-style implicit declaration of
tlp's in certain circumstances, e.g. when used as the second argument
of \ior_to:NN. I'd like to suggest that the `check' option used in
the dtx files be changed into a package option, say `checkdef' (you
can think of a better name). At the moment the decision of whether or
not to check arguments is made once for all time when docstrip is
invoked.

Clearly we are still used to using \def in the same way as Lisp's
setq, i.e. as a general definition mechanism that doesn't care about
what you are defining (i.e. whether it has a previous definition).
The new version of xr now has three `declarations' that are evaluated
when the package is loaded. I can live with that; I (we) just need to
remember that a new discipline is required. I expect that a syntax
checker for L3PL will find uses of seq's, tlp's, etc. without
corresponding declarations.

Your algorithm is also subtly different. The original version is
careful to process \@input's in the order in which they are
encountered, but your version uses a stack. If there are no label
conflicts, the net effect is the same. But if there are multiple
conflicts, the original version stops at the first conflict, whereas
yours might even stop at the last first and the first last!

In your favour: since you use push and pop operations it's obvious
that your version handles \@input's back-to-front, whereas it wasn't
obvious in the original that \@input's are handled front-to-back (both
versions using a breadth-first traversal).

 > > Tim's questions are really quite important for the `average' package
 > > writer, because they will be programing `in-the-small', and the xr
 > > example is quite a good one for that. Even such a small package has
 > > needed a total re-think and re-writing.
 >
 > true but is it so much different from having to hunt through the LaTeX
 > source to find you way in providing packages?

Well . . . it's yet another layer of knowledge that has to be mastered
before you can start doing non-trivial things. Those of us who have
been using TeX for ten years or more will shrug our shoulders and
learn it anyway, but it might well serve as a deterrent to those who
come to LaTeX3 as beginners.

 > After all a lot of the documentation therein was provided by us during
 > the last years before that its internal documentation was very much
 > out of date (still is in some parts).

If you are happy to release out-of-date and inconsistent documentation
for incomplete packages then in fairness to us - your guinea pigs -
_everything_ must be up for grabs.

Frank wrote elsewhere:
 > just to change all the files to some new convention takes some effort
 > which can be better spend. at the moment at least!

Perhaps (the fewer inconsistencies in the original, the easier it will
be), and I am not suggesting doing it on a whim; but if you try to
close doors at this stage I - and I suspect others - will stubbornly
stick in our arms and legs. Even if you have already written five
chapters of your next book :-)

 > what i mean is, you need to have got a feeling for it but that it true
 > right now as well except that right now because of nearly no
 > conventions people are forced to reinvent the wheel over and over just
 > because they don't know that some command or datatype or whatever
 > already exist somewhere.

Agreed. A good example from the internals of LaTeX is the \@for and
\@tfor constructs. Unless you read the old lplain.tex or the new
ltcntrl.dtx you would probably have no idea that these constructs
existed. The problem here is not one of consistency, but rather (a)
these constructs have never really been `official' and advertised, and
(b) there is still no proper documentation. \@for, \@tfor, and many
other internal macros of LaTeX deserve `promotion' to L3PL. Much
of this reinvention will then be avoided.

 > so yes you need a re-think, you probably don't need much of a
 > rewriting for an existing package if you just mainly do a manual
 > translation but you can gain a lot once you start replacing all you
 > low-level private code by already provided solutions for many of the
 > basic functionality which right now is often repeated over and over
 > again in packages.

It sounds as though it must be true, but let's see. As I said
earlier, we will go anywhere you take us, but let's enjoy the journey
and learn from it.

Frank also writes:
 > . . . the
 > solution is that you provide a replacement book for the TeX book.

So this is your next book . . . my hand is creeping up . . . pick me!
:-) I would be happy to contribute a chapter or two or proof-read or
. . . Eine deutsche Uebersetzung waere auch moeglich . . . :-)

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