On 8/5/12, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 05/08/2012 05:16, Will Robertson wrote: >> On 03/08/2012, at 9:53 PM, Bruno Le Floch wrote: >> >>> Admittedly, none of the three "solutions" is great. As Joseph notes, >>> we've gone for a single line in the l3 source. We could perhaps add >>> \def\^^M{\unskip\space\ignorespaces} to the \begin{syntax} setup: this >>> would allow >>> >>> \cs{some_function_with_a_very_long_name:nnnnn} \ >>> \Arg{first argument} \Arg{second argument} \ >>> \Arg{third argument} \Arg{fourth argument} \ >>> \Arg{fifth argument} >> >> I've been thinking for a while that having \obeylines in the syntax >> environment (which predates my involvement on this code IIRC) has made >> certain things rather awkward. >> >> It would be an annoying change to have to implement in our sources, but >> what do you think about dropping \obeylines? >> >> -- Will > Seems sensible to me: we've altered how we approach using this > environment, and \obeylines is probably not that helpful. > -- > Joseph Wright I agree, we've moved towards using the active characters less and \cs, \meta, \Arg more. Perhaps there could be an option "syntax-active = false" to completely disable active characters in the syntax blocks? -- Bruno