Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4F0BA0B4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:15 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4F0BA0B4" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: macro names with @ signs Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:12:30 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Dominik Wujastyk" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 466 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4F0BA0B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would be very interested in any scheme to standardize macro names usage for large macro packages. I don't think there is any hope (or much point) in trying to standardize the usage of people writing just a few lines. But for projects the size of this LaTeX re-write, yes, I think it becomes almost essential. When you really need a system, I find, is when the package you are working on gets too big to be held in mind as a whole. Recently, in EDMAC, I renamed the list macros to xxx@list, because I kept losing track of what was a list and what wasn't. Similarly, (although I haven't done it), one could say xxx@count, xxx@dimen, and so on. Which brings me to the way that Fmi et al. are creating a style of using the "@" sign as a kind of word boundary. I have to say that I quite like this, and I find their macros easier to read because of this usage. It is not unlike the Pascal business of capitalizing words in multi-word names, or the C style of using the underscore. It works for me. Perhaps we should go a step further, and make "_" into a letter, so that macros *really* look like C/Pascal! [Joke.] Dominik ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4F0BA0B4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable macro names with @ signs

I would be very interested in any scheme to = standardize macro
names usage for large macro packages.  I don't = think there is any
hope (or much point) in trying to standardize the = usage of people
writing just a few lines.  But for projects the = size of this
LaTeX re-write, yes, I think it becomes almost = essential.

When you really need a system, I find, is when the = package you
are working on gets too big to be held in mind as a = whole.
Recently, in EDMAC, I renamed the list macros to = xxx@list, because
I kept losing track of what was a list and what = wasn't.  Similarly,
(although I haven't done it), one could say = xxx@count, xxx@dimen,
and so on.

Which brings me to the way that Fmi et al. are = creating a style
of using the "@" sign as a kind of word = boundary.  I have to
say that I quite like this, and I find their = macros
easier to read because of this usage.  It is not = unlike the
Pascal business of capitalizing words in multi-word = names, or
the C style of using the underscore.  It works = for me.

Perhaps we should go a step further, and make = "_" into a letter,
so that macros *really* look like = C/Pascal!   [Joke.]

Dominik


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4F0BA0B4--