Print

Print


Lars,

 > >are you saying that the decision within NFSS was good or bad?
 >
 > I'm essentially saying that the decision was good, because I understood
 > what that thingy meant (here we switch to font ...) without any
 > understanding of the mechanisms behind it. (Here I mean in particular that

phhh, good; you got me worried  :-)

 > can contain a period), but for keyvals you've already opened the door for
 > miscellaneous symbols by a frequent use of hyphens.

well opened the door is perhaps too much to say. if there would be a decision
now to say that template, instances and key names can not contain a slash or
can only contain a...zA...Z- then we could make that decision.

mind you i'm not arguing for it. i offered that only as an option because we
used this type of naming convention in the past with good results.

 > As for splitting the names: You need to do a catcode change when defining
 > the macro that is to retrieve the parts of the names, and it's not (in
 > complete generality, although probably yes in practice) possible to get the

yes i understand that one can write such a macro in this way.

 > parts right simply by expanding one macro, but with the current naming
 > scheme there might not even be a unique identification of the name parts.

with the current naming convention probably not but we all agree that we want
to replace that, don't we? my remark was only to replace perhaps { and }{ by /
and leave out the final } in the names to get shorter and perhaps more
readable names though that certainly open to debate (and probably just a
question of being used to)

again, you and David decide on something (or even implement it --- you want
the latest sources?)

frank

 >
 > Lars Hellström