Frank Mittelbach pisze: > > As for the ``sequence of footnotes'' issue: > > ------------------------------------------- > > ... > > a sequence of note marks and not for a single mark. If sequences are > > allowed, single footnote mark is not a self-contained entity. > > i don't really want to dispute this. but are there seriously layouts that > treat this as units? perhaps there are and perhaps it is the wrong question > anyway since if one provides this functionality one should probably provide it > all way through. Precisely. For the footnotes this is a border case. But with multiple \cite's it is easier to expect a need for putting sth different between the last but one and the last item than between others (like [X, Y, Z, and T]). That would make three different kinds of \cite's. In this case passing a sequence is much cleaner. > so assuming we intend to provide it all way through what would be a sensible > template type for it? the main problem i see right now is that the tempate > types as currently defined do only work with a fixed set of arguments. this > would allow for three courses to take: > > ... > > - consider to provide for structured arguments to templates, eg > (comma-separated lists) or something like that. --- the latter may in fact > be necessary in other circumstances anyway (supporting \cite comes to > mind). how this is actually then mapped to syntax is a different > matter and > i must confess i have no immediate idea that seems appealing. I feel the template here has fixed number of arguments but one of them happens to be a sequence (the elements of this sequence are in a way homogenous, you know). This opens the issue of processing sequences (just passing them doesn't seem to be a problem, could sequences be written {in}{a}{more TeXy}{way} instead to be comma delimited? This would relive us from enclosing in a group elements already containing a comma). Probably a kind of an abstract data type for sequences should be defined. Common needs inside template code would probably be taking the first/last element of a sequence (shortening the sequence) and a foreach loop. Of these foreach loop is easy. On the other hand destructive operations are a problem since the sequence is passed as an argument and not a named storage bin. Some \BuildQueue{name}{#3} could be introduced, but this is just plain ugly. > > ---------- > > Shouldn't \DelayedEvaluation be rather named \DelayEvaluation or > > shouldn't it? i thought it was named \DelayEvaluation when we put it out; > must gave got another "ed" traveling to your country :-) I would swear I've seen it written this way somewhere, but generally oops on my side. From that you can easily guess that I haven't actually written any template.:-)