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  October 1999

LATEX-L October 1999

Subject:

On template types

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:19:02 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (209 lines)

Lars,

> Here are some thoughts about templates and font selection. Perhaps I
> thought about it a bit too long, because the mail got a bit
> long-winded, but I hope you'll endure it.

long-winded or not your post does contain a lot of interesting
thoughts which are worth pursuing further. but before looking at fonts
let me first discuss template types a bit further and explain how i
understand that concept (this might also answers some of the questions
James posed in a different message).

you wrote:

> \DeclareTemplateType{noparams}{0}
> \DeclareTemplate {noparams}{author-fonts}{0}{
>    medium      =n [m]   \mddefault,
>    boldface    =n [b]   \bfdefault,
>    light       =n [m]   \ltdefault,
>    upright     =n [n]   \urdefault,
>    italic      =n [it]  \itdefault,
>    slanted     =n [sl]  \sldefault,
>    smallcaps   =n [sc]  \scdefault
> }{\DoParameterAssignments}
>
> (Or perhaps author-fonts should be a type and the template should be
> named default or something. I'm not sure, but it seems odd that all
> templates without parameters (i.e., having type noparams in the above
> setting) should always be affected by the same \UseCollection
> commands.)

if we would have a template type "noparams" what is it supposed to
mean? As Lars said: "it seems odd that all templates without
parameters should always be affected by the same \UseCollection
commands". And indeed, this is not only odd it is against the
philosophy of template types!

The purpose of the template type is the following:

 loosely speaking it is supposed to ensure that an instance of some
 template type could be exchanged with another instance of the same
 template type without making the code produce rubbish or doesn't work
 any more.

 now the above example template type called "noparams" is setting font
 defaults which is something completely different than say

\DeclareTemplate{noparams}{TeX}{0}{
  uchyph                   =c [1]   \uchyph,
  hyphenpenalty            =c [50]  \hyphenpenalty,
  exhyphenpenalty          =c [50]  \exhyphenpenalty,
  lefthyphenmin            =c       \lefthyphenmin,
  righthyphenmin           =c       \righthyphenmin,
}
 {\DoParameterAssignments}

which is also a template that doesn't take mandatory parameter. So if
one would claim that both such templates are of the same type we would
claim that a class designer could replace an instance of the first
template with an instance of the second. we don't mean this do we?

so the template type is more than just the number of parameters and
their meaning: it is an informal summary of the semantics of the
code/purpose/action/effect it has. this includes the semantics of its
mandatory parameters but it also includes its overall effect. Thus a
template which is setting up the hyphenation mechanism of TeX (like
the one above) should have a template type with a dedicated name (say
"hyphenation") which has the following informal description: "templates of
my type customize the TeX hyphenation algorithm and take no mandatory
parameter". (it should probably be far more verbose, eg saying
something about the scope of the customization etc etc)

 And a template which sets up the font defaults should perhaps have a
type called "fontdefaults" and an informal description ...

This way we would not mistakenly replace an instance which sets up
fonts with an instance setting up hyphenation and vice versa but only
with instances that are "compatible in nature".

as a side remark: my experience with templates that are doing
declaration only (eg do not have mandatory arguments and no code
section worth mentioning (like those above)) is that you seldom end up
with more than a single template per type. as a result you may start
wondering about the whole concept of separating type and
template. Well the answer is that with template types that encapsulate
more complex stuff (eg a list template type) you will soon find that
there are several different templates possible that all fit this type.
but even with such declaration thingies you sometime want to provide
more than one template, for example, to offer different styles of
declaration. So instead of the template TeX (of type hyphenation no
noparams :-) above which is simply setting the low-level TeX
parameters one could also offer the following template:

\newcount\@@lefthyphenmin

\DeclareTemplate{hyphenation}{std}{0}{
  hyphen-disable-boolean   =s  {\ifnum\@@lefthyphenmin<\@M
                                  \@@lefthyphenmin\lefthyphenmin
                                  \lefthyphenmin\@M
                                \fi}
                               {\ifnum\@@lefthyphenmin>\z@
                                  \lefthyphenmin\@@lefthyphenmin
                                \fi},
  hyphen-uppercase-boolean =s  {\uchyph\@ne}{\uchyph\z@},
  hyphen-discourage-boolean=s  {\hyphenpenalty\@highpenalty
                                \exhyphenpenalty\@highpenalty}
                               {\hyphenpenalty\@lowpenalty
                                \exhyphenpenalty\@lowpenalty},
}
 {\DoParameterAssignments}

with instances like

\DeclareInstance{hyphenation}{off}{std}
    {hyphen-disable-boolean    = true}

\DeclareInstance{hyphenation}{on}{std}
    {hyphen-disable-boolean    = false,
     hyphen-uppercase-boolean  = true,
     hyphen-discourage-boolean = false}

\DeclareInstance{hyphenation}{discourage}{std}
    {hyphen-disable-boolean    = false,
     hyphen-uppercase-boolean  = true,
     hyphen-discourage-boolean = true}



=============================

confused everybody enough? hope not :-)

here is another way to look at it via some example: below is a user
declaration for a description environment.

 \DeclareDocumentEnvironment {description}
    { }
    {\UseInstance{list}{description}
       \NoValue  \NoValue  \BooleanFalse
     }
    { \EndThisList }

\DeclareInstance{list}{description}{vertical-std}{ ... }

what do we see here?

a)  An instance of type "list" is called which seems to take three
    mandatory arguments (all of which have preset values, ie \NoValue
    \NoValue and \BooleanFalse)

b)  There is this strange \EndThisList

c)  The instance description is declared using a template "vertical-std"


In fact this is an example of the list template type as described in
the Vancouver talk as follows:

    To format list structures such as \texttt{itemize} there might be a
    template type called \texttt{list} with the following
    characteristics:
    \begin{itemize}
    \item
      Starts a list structure embedding it into the surrounding formatting
    \item
      Sets up a command |\ListItem| (one argument)
      to start a new `item' of the list
    \item
      Sets up a command |\EndThisList| to finish the current list
      structure properly
    \item
      Expects three arguments with the following semantics:
      \begin{itemize}
      \item
        String to calculate width of left indentation, or |\NoValue|
      \item
        Symbol/string to be used as item label, or |\NoValue|
      \item
        Boolean to denote whether or not numbering continues
      \end{itemize}
    \end{itemize}


in other words, not only the semantics of the three arguments are part
of the template type but also the fact that each such template is
supposed to set up \EndThisList and \ListItem.

And of course this has to be the case if i want to be able to replace
the instance "description" above with an different declaration  which
might look like this:

 \DeclareInstance{list}{description}{inline}{ ... }


While the template "vertical-std" produces lists which look like
current LaTeX lists (ie vertically oriented ...) the "inline" template
would contain code that makes a run-in list ie one that is
horizontally oriented. All this would only work if both templates take
the same number of arguments (and interpret them in the same way) and
in addition also behave otherwise compatible, ie they both have to set
up \EndThisList etc --- thus the template type is the sum of all such
characteristics.

hope all this helps a little bit in understanding what we try to
provide

frank

ps who is long-winded??? :-)

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