X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1045" "Wed" "17" "June" "1998" "20:38:55" "+0200" "Hans Aberg" "haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE" nil "20" "Re: Modules" "^Date:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA13211; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:39:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.70B281E5@listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:39:08 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 364471 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:39:04 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25699 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:39:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.46] (sl88.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.114]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA04146 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:38:57 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <13704.121.527407.877988@fell.open.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:38:55 +0200 From: Hans Aberg Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Modules Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2567 At 19:48 +0200 98/06/17, Chris Rowley wrote: >This is certainly something that needs attention but is probably >independent of L3PL modularisation, or maybe there is some overlap? There is some overlap, which is why I bring it up: The correct way to do this stuff is to write it out by hand as in L3PL, and then with a good context given by all the code to fit into it, and successively moves to higher levels of abstraction. But on this road, there are some sneaky points, namely if one does not start to think about modules and submodules one the final higher abstraction level, some of the early decisions will be wrong, and then all work has to be redone (or it will be impossible to implement it). So I try to mainly point out some of the principles I saw, and perhaps they can help to influence the L3PL if needed. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: * AMS member listing: