X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Wed, 28 Feb 90 08:48:00 MET
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: "Nico (Poppelier@Hutruu51.Bitnet)" <POPPELIER%HUTRUU51@unido.bitnet>
Subject:      Re: \@startsection
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 37

Re: Frank Mittlebach's note on \@startsection


> Otherwise the designer has to use such monsters like \ifnum level >
> \c@secnumdepth ...\else in the definition of the unstared heading
> layout, brrrr.

See: \@part and \ps@headings in book.sty, and \@chapter in bk1*.sty.
It's not an unusual construction for a document style designer
to use, apparently.

> I strongly disagree with the the use of beforeskip, afterskip and
> its special - syntax to denote things like run-in heading
> and afterindent.

You're right. But replacing this convention with a set of flags
doesn't add functionality, which is what this discussion is about.

[ A suggestion: if you change the syntax to

  \@startsection{XXX}{1}{\afterindentfalse \runinfalse}
                        {10pt plus 5 pt}{5pt plus 3 pt}{....}...

  you could assign #4 to \beforeXXXskip and #5 to \afterXXXskip, and
  change these glue parameters any time you wish without calling
  \@startsection again.]

> Granted that even this would be manageble it is a questionable syntax
> in general. My question here is: do we really need to destinguish
> normally between present/not present of numbers etc.

Yes, we do need to distinguish.

> I would assume (please comments!) that one definition would be enough
> if objects given back by the kernel (like \headingnumber) would
> produce different things (i.e. empty for example).

I believe the following theorem holds

Theorem: for every generic syntax there is at least one style of
-------  sectional unit headings that can not be fitted into this
         generic syntax.
It's a bit like G\"odel's theorem (just kidding).

I will give an example from my own work:

- section  := \Large ragged-right `hangfrom', for level < secnumdepth
- section  := \large centered heading, for level >= secnumdepth
- section* := \large centered heading

(1) You do need to distinguish and (2) for every syntax you propose I
think I can find a heading that doesn't fit into the scheme.

> For the real special applications one could provide a test, say
> \ifpresent, which could be used by the style designer to take certain
> actions depending on \ifpresent\headingnumber ...\else ... \fi.

There's no difference between this and \ifnum level > \c@secnumdepth.

> In the special case of heading/contents however I think the write read
> mechanism of the current version is okay.

\numberline needs to be re-defined if section numbers have to be
typeset in a font that differs from that of the section title. I
thought this a bit awkward.

> What Nico is discussing here seems in my opinion partly a question of
> ``which commands to provide in which meta style''.

Yes, but only partly: there are no tools for this in LaTeX 2.09. If I
want to produce Bryan's book in LaTeX I have to create new tools.


Nico