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:

Re: Experimental `template' interface code

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:58:23 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

James,

i already started to explain my understanding of template types in the
reply to Lars and perhaps this has already answered your questions,
but anyway let me elaborate a bit more on mandatory arguments viz
keyword attributes etc

> About lists, and especially about the what it means for the arguments of
> a template type to have the same interpretation.
>
> Suppose the template type has a width argument.  This could be used for
> the width of a box to set the list in, or a template which set each item
> in a cell of a table, the width argument could be used to specify the
> width of those cells.  Is this within what is understood by type
> arguments having the same interpretation?  What if the widht was taken
> as the width of the the label?

as i said, instances with the same template type (whether or not are
derived from the same template) should be exchangeable without making
the processing of a document blow up or produce rubbish. With that in
mind the the above examples should most certainly not be the same
type. In other words the fact that an argument takes a dimension is
not the only identifying characteristic for that argument within an
informal type declaration. In addition the interpretation of this
dimension is crucial. Thus if one template would interpret that
argument as the width of the label but another one would interpret it
as the width of the whole line or the width of the text then you would
get very strange results if you replace one such instance with
another, wouldn't you?

So suppose we define the template type list with the following
characteristics (beside others not listed):

  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}

if so the first argument if not \NoValue would determine the left
indentation (eg something like the available space for the
label). Thus the following declaration would be an extended
description environment

\DeclareDocumentEnvironment{description}
    { o }
    { \UseInstance{list}{description} {#1} \NoValue \BooleanFalse }
    { \EndThisList }

where the user in a document could go like this

 \begin{description}[longlabel]
 \item[short] ...
 \item[longlabel] ...
 \item[other] ...
 \end{description}

in other words the user overwrites the default left indentation with a
value calculated from the string "longlabel". Now such an overwrite
possibility might make sense for vertical oriented lists (like current
LaTeX description lists) but if the designer decides that all such
lists are horizontally oriented then that argument suddenly doesn't
serve any purpose any more as there is no left indentation.

Now one could argue that those two templates are so much different
that they can't possibly form a replacement for each other (it is
perhaps a border case indeed). However I think they can and should
have the same template type and for this reason we allow one
derivation from that rule that arguments of templates with the same
type have to have the same interpretation. The exception is that an
argument value might be ignored completely (if the informal template
type description says so). That is to say all templates of a given
type have to parse the same number of arguments but in certain cases
they are allowed to disregard some of the parsed values
completely. What they are not allowed is to use the supplied value for
a different purpose.

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

so when should be something a mandatory argument to a template (and
thus part of the template type) and when is it better or more correct
to put something into the keyword attributes of some template itself?

there is no simple answer for this. i tried to give some reasoning on
these template type arguments when i wrote the documentation for
template.dtx. here is another look at it.

 - clearly everything that is variable data coming from the document
 source has to be passed to the template as a mandatory argument, eg
 if we try to define a template type for say headings we have to pass
 the heading text as a mandatory argument. i don't think there is much
 discussion about that. in case of headings same would be true for
 data going to the toc and data going to a potential running head
 entry (in current latex those two are combined but this is not really
 what you necessarily want)

 - sometimes there are some logical facts about the data in the
 document that you like to pass to the template in which case this has
 to happen through mandatory arguments as well. for example
 enumeration lists might logically continue a previous list or start
 enumeration again --- this one models all kind of lists in a single
 type (which might be a mistake conceptually) then an information
 about whether or not the current list continues a previous
 enumeration should be passed to the template as a flag of some sort
 (in fact this is just variable document data if one thinks about
 this, after all it is a logical fact about the document that the
 current list continues a previous one)

 - any layout decisions should normally go into the keyword attributes
 of the individual template unless you want for some reason provide
 user level overwrites. if so you need to pass either user given
 formatting values or flags down to the template


The really difficult one is the last item, ie which (if any) of the
layout decisions of some template should be modifiable from within the
document source? A person whose soul is pure would perhaps argue
"none" :-) but life is short and people like a pragmatic approach
towards solving of problems.

So my approach is to put in the template types a number of such
"layout oriented" arguments if it seems that inclusion solves a large
number of modification requests in a wide variety of different cases
--- what a nonsense sentence :-) but i hope you get the the essence of
what i'm trying to say.

problem is to find those essential overwrites (and clearly people will
have different opinions on what is essential and what not)

for example, the above three arguments are those that i have come up
in the context of lists but there are probably others which perhaps
should get added, eg an argument which receives a value like "default"
"tight" "compact" and does modify the spacing characteristics of the
list in question.

Maybe - maybe not ... this was what i meant when i said please think
about what you would consider being an appropriate template type for
lists / footnotes / ...

so please ... :-)

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

returning to James post:

> Another thought, lists with one-line items look very widely spaced,
> especially when used with non-zero parskip and double spacing.  A
> variant form with tighter spacing, and the item text set in an hbox for
> such lists might be a good idea.

this might be something which should be controlled from the document
or alternatively one could think of a template which is internally
smarter and allows the designer to specify different spacing values
depending on the number of items in the list.

on the other hand, the current latex list setup is simply wrong in the
sense that if you change \parskip to a positive value you have to
adjust all list spacing anyway as parskip is always added to the
values (something which should not be the case) so perhaps is this not
really a problem in a properly designed setup

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