Joseph >> Until we actually have the basics of a new format, A new format??? That sounds worrying as I am passing the message to the million+ everyday users of LaTeX that there will never again be a need for different 'formats' with all its technical and sociological problems, primarily because they are handy only for last century's technology levels. So I hope we can have a consistent message on this. Chris Sent from a bar . . . maybe an iBar. On 18 Jul 2013, at 09:02, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 17/07/2013 19:27, Joel C. Salomon wrote: >> Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@...> writes: >>> At present I'm waiting to see what people thing of the code-level stuff. >>> At the same time, I'm not sure about making package option processing >>> too complex. The lesson I've learned is that keyval in options is >>> governed by the LaTeX2e kernel: options are expanded, and checking for >>> clashes doesn't 'know' about keyval. Thus I tend to think load-time >>> options should really be limited to things that need to happen there, >>> with later \<thing>setup to cover more complex option sets. >> >> Is the behavior of package & class options expected to be different >> (specifically, keyval-aware) in a LaTeX3 kernel? If so, would it be >> appropriate to define \UseExplPackage et al. so that the future behavior can >> be experimented with? >> >> --Joel > > Not really worthwhile. The way that the LaTeX2e kernel does option > processing means that expansion/space stripping happens 'early'. As > such, you can't alter it in a way that is easy. Look at the option > keyval-patching code in xkeyval and kvoptions to see this: you have to > pre-load an additional package before the one where you want 'new' > effects. Until we actually have the basics of a new format, this isn't > going to help. > -- > Joseph Wright