Message-Id: <199402111732.AA00468@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:10:19 CST
From: Alex Stark <jas1@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lis
Status: R

In Message Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:39:00 +0100, Frank Poppe <POPPE@SWOV.NL> writes:

>
>Rainer Schoepf <schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>:
>
>RS> Coming back to the proposal above for LaTeX3, namely using the syntax
>RS>
>RS> \command[[key1]value1[key2]value2]{required}
>RS>

>
>I agree that the key=value syntax is easier to understand.
>But remember that this line of discussion started with the wish to have
>more optional commands on the \section command: the ability to specfify
>different texts for t-o-c and mark's, apart from the section title to
>appear in the text. The chance that somebody would want to use an equal
>sign may not be great, but shouldn't be ignored either.
>

Why not
    \section[toc={=--?12gobblegobblegook}]{Gobble Gobble Gook}
                                                               ?

Alex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Alex Stark          Signal Processing and Communications Laboratory
                                             Department of Engineering
email: jas1@uk.ac.cam.eng                      University of Cambridge
Tel:   [+44]223 3 32767                             Trumpington Street
Fax:   [+44]223 3 32662                         Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK