Print

Print


Joseph Wright wrote:
> Arno Trautmann wrote:
>> My opinion about the \begin<env>–\end<env>: I don’t like it at all.
>> ConTeXt uses \startenv – \endenv, which is a bit better. A perfect thing
>> would be: \envstart – \envend. Reason: autocompletion works much better.
>> Now I always have to type \begin{do <tab> to get \begin{document} as
>> completion. With \documentstart it would only be \do <tab>. I don’t know
>> if anybody here likes this, but Joseph asked for discussions…
> 
> Interesting idea, and takes the best from what is about (ConTeXt, in
> this case) and learns from it.

So it should be :)

>  It seems pretty much a given that
> LaTeX2e documents won't work "out of the box" with LaTeX3, so it is
> certainly worth thinking about this type of change.
> 
> Thinking where this takes us, something like:
> 
> \latexstart

What is this good for?…

> \loadclass{article}
> 
> \loadmodule{whatever-module}
> 
> \documentstart
> 
> Some text
> 
> \itemizestart
>   \item An item
>   \item Another one
> \itemizeend
> 
> \documentend
> 
> \latexend
> 
> perhaps?  Rather more ConTeXt-like than I'm used to, but also quite clear.

Now that I read code not written by me, I notize a disadvantage: It’s
much harder to distinguish macros from environments. Maybe

\itemize_start
  \item
  \item
\itemize_end

might be better?

cheers
Arno