X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["1139" "Mon" "20" "October" "1997" "19:30:59" "+0200" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "23" "Re: \\@ifdefinable" "^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 TAA02511;
	Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:50:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <7.D2917890@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:50:04 +0200
Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
          (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218677 for
          LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:53 +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 TAA29850 for
          <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:46
          +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from [130.237.37.82] (sl01.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.21]) by
          mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA07097 for
          <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:41
          +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se
References: Your message of "Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:02:16 +0200." 
            <v03110700b0711f81fa4e@[130.237.37.46]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v03110707b07144139223@[130.237.37.82]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199710201656.MAA00992@aleph.swift.xxx>
Date:         Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
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: \@ifdefinable
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 2487

At 12:56 -0400 97/10/20, Matthew Swift wrote:
>I don't have an opinion on cleaning up the internals of \@ifdefinable;
>I have been able to write a large number of defining commands without
>running into any problems in this regard (the moredefs package).

  I just want to clean up the logic, so it is cleaner when starting doing
more complicated things (such as implementing "object"): When defining a
new command one wants to ensure first that it does not conflict with the
LaTeX internals, which seems to be what the \@ifdefinable should be, and
then you may have additional wishes, such as \@ifundefined.

>        4) advanced syntax that lets you compute the macro name and/or write a
>           complex parameter specification.

  Isn't this just the usual (in-reality-not-so-advanced) TeX parameter
definitions you are thinking of here?

  I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is pointless. Should
it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed in compatibility mode?

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:haberg@member.ams.org>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>