Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.AC68A5F4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:51 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.AC68A5F4" 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: RE: Some excerpts from the previous discussion re nfss 2 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 18:59:30 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 723 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.AC68A5F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> 1. Is this a good idea? I think so; I agree that one needs the functionality, and therefore the idea (or a closely related one) seems appropriate. >>> 2. If so, which syntax is apropriate? I cannot decide what options I am being offered here! But if I may comment on the syntax in general: a) The leading * is ugly. I can see that it might speed up parsing (slightly), but just looking for an embedded hyphen can't be much slower, and could lead to a more elegant syntax. b) The multiple braces is horrific (IMHO); as {\scriptscriptsize, = \scriptsize, \textsize} form a triplet, why not treat it as such --- something = like: {5.5-6.5}{5, 5, 5} {6.5-7.5}{5, 6, 7} {7.5-10}{0.5I, 0.7I, 1.0I} [I've just realised your ordering of the three sizes is the converse = of mine: I naturally ordered mine in increasing order; you order yours in = decreasing order; given the need for mnemonicity, which is more natural ?] c) For \jot et al, what is the syntax for multiple pseudo-assignments? I would advocate something like: {7.5-10}{0.5I, 0.7I, 1.0I}{\jot: ; \strutheight: ; = } ** Phil. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.AC68A5F4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Some excerpts from the previous discussion re nfss = 2

>>> 1. Is this a good idea?

I think so; I agree that one needs the functionality, = and therefore
the idea (or a closely related one) seems = appropriate.

>>> 2. If so, which syntax is = apropriate?

I cannot decide what options I am being offered = here!  But if I may
comment on the syntax in general:

a) The leading * is ugly.  I can see that it = might speed up parsing
  (slightly), but just looking for an embedded = hyphen can't be much
   slower, and could lead to a more elegant = syntax.

b) The multiple braces is horrific (IMHO); as = {\scriptscriptsize, \scriptsize,
  \textsize} form a triplet, why not treat it as = such --- something like:

        {5.5-6.5}{5, 5, 5}
        {6.5-7.5}{5, 6, 7}
        {7.5-10}{0.5I, 0.7I, 1.0I}

  [I've just realised your ordering of the three = sizes is the converse of mine:
   I naturally ordered mine in increasing = order; you order yours in decreasing
   order; given the need for mnemonicity, = which is more natural ?]

c) For \jot et al, what is the syntax for multiple = pseudo-assignments?
   I would advocate something like:


      {7.5-10}{0.5I, 0.7I, = 1.0I}{\jot: <expr-1>; \strutheight: <expr-2>; = <etc>}

        =         =         =         =         ** = Phil.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.AC68A5F4--