Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote: > Joseph Wright a écrit : >> How do you see that working with things like \DeclareDocumentCommand. >> Two options come to mind: >> >> 1) Given them names which reflect the separation >> (\DeclareLaTeXDocumentCommand, etc.) >> >> 2) Add an extra "model" argument: >> >> \DeclareDocumentCommand { <model> } { <name> } { <argument-detail> } >> { <code> } >> >> where we make no assumptions about anything here and do something like >> > How about a global switch like \UseLaTeXeCommands (or whatever)? I tend to think > the current name is already long enough... > > Anyway, if Frank's idea of having separate packages xparse-2e and maybe latter > xparse-gellmu or how knows, currently the switch is done by calling > > \usepackage{xparse-2e} > > or possibly another one (since l3 is still used on top on 2e at the moment), so > I guess the question will only arise latter. Anyway, probably only one on the > possibly various xparse-* will be used at the same time, so I don't see any > problem with them using the smae command name. > > Manuel. > I'm thinking ahead: you can't use the same command name in a format without needing a different format for each possible case. I'm also thinking that at the very least \DeclareDocumentCommand needs to have the same number of arguments when creating LaTeX2e commands, gellmu commands, ... -- Joseph Wright