X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1632" "Tue" "14" "October" "1997" "01:13:15" "+0200" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "35" "Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros" "^Date:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA22495; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.CFC01C29@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 1:13:15 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214670 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:00 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA28031 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:12:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.63] (sl99.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.125]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA02382 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:12:56 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:15 +0200 From: Hans Aberg Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2454 At 21:45 +0100 97/10/13, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > > by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other, > > > macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie > > > > > > \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx} ... >If such a spec includes a number of mandatory keywords, a number of >optional ones but allows classes to add additional keywords that are >supposed to be ignored by classes not implementing them then this can >be a big improved. Of course it might also produce chaos if class A >defines foo to mean X and class B defines foo to mean Y then we are >back at incompatible classes. This can be sorted out by ideas of object orientation: Class A uses local names A/foo, and class B uses local names B/foo; thus they do not clash. So perhaps class or object "article" would define \article/communicated % Date when article is communicated. \article/revised % Date when article is revised. giving room for class journal to define \journal/revised % Date when journal issue is revised. putting in the revision dates of the articles in its own \journal/article structure, taking say a number as an argument, so that \journal/article5{revised} might expand to the date article #5 was revised (or something). It is then possible to hide away the internal "/" structures by environment style commands. I have done programming in this style. -- But I am not sure if TeX getting slow by long names. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: