> > > > >- In the template documentation, the question is raised whether a > > template type declaration should expect an argument containing a > > description of the semantics. I'm strongly in favour of this idea and > > would even suggest that all declarations get a mandatory argument for > > storing descriptive information, i.e. also those for templates and > > instances. (Together with another one for a one-line short description > > this would make automatic documentation of designs possible and > > besides would encourage the programmer or designer to spell out their > > ideas to themselves before coding.) > > I tend to disagree. There already is a standard (doc package / .dtx > sources) in the LaTeX world which is far more expressive than what one can > achieve through mere command arguments, hence it would be counterproductive > to try to force another level of (lower quality) documentation into the > actual commands. > Not necessarily lower, just different, since this is part of a new LaTeX, which may have a programming environment associtaed with it one day; and this environment may be able to make use of some structured on-line brief info fields. This could be implemnted as above or as below. > A better idea would be to device a set of doc commands adapted to the needs > of template documentation, and promote the use of those. More stuff to rmemeber? > A "smart editor" > should use the sources (.dtx) as reference for command definitions, not the > "executables" (.sty and such). > These may also merge since it is not clear that much is saved these days by stripping the comments. chris