Message-ID:  <97100912590093@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:59:01 GMT
From: Phillip Helbig <helbig@MULTIVAC.JB.MAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros
Status: R

>  > appropriate here:).  The keyword syntax is different from the normal
>  > LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility
>  > is assured.  If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted
> you you allow for {}, so whats the difference? it means we just have
> the pain of remembering to say \author{}{Foo Bar}

I think there is a difference in concept if not in effect.  Normally,
optional arguments CAN be left out, whereas they shouldn't be here.  If
it's really optional, the .cls can't complain, and if it should
complain, then it would be bad style to use [].

>  > keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords
>  > are missing.
> which, indeed, is a feature; it provides a good interface for journal
> classes to work with

Yes, a feature.

>  > One must also avoid individual packages adding their own
>  > keywords etc without coordination with others.
> again, one might regard that as a feature...

Of course.


--
Phillip Helbig                          Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories   Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297)
Jodrell Bank                            Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618
Macclesfield                            Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G
UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL                    Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/

My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.