Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f16Ki1H19969 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:44:01 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16Ki1d06076 . for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:44:01 +0100 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16Ki0711050 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:44:00 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0907D.88FD7E80" Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08410 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:44:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16Khv711039 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:57 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.5C3617AD@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:52 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 489083 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:54 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA14496 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA05866 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:53 +0100 Received: from moutvdom00.kundenserver.de (moutvdom00.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.149]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16Khru16169 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from [195.20.224.209] (helo=mrvdom02.schlund.de) by moutvdom00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14QExs-0006ee-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:43:52 +0100 Received: from manz-3e364879.pool.mediaways.net ([62.54.72.121] helo=istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de) by mrvdom02.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14QEyG-0004lH-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:44:17 +0100 Received: (from latex3@localhost) by istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id VAA22635; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:41:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200102061839.SAA14684@nag.co.uk> References: <200102061839.SAA14684@nag.co.uk> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.4.1 X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de: latex3 set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: More template experience Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:41:24 +0100 Message-ID: <14976.24948.777202.226167@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3731 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0907D.88FD7E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Carlisle writes: > There is a general rule of optional things using {} and mandatory = things > using [] but perhaps since the syntax for template declarations are = so you meant the other way around do you? > formalised anyway, the rules can be different here. Frank? Chris? they could i have to deep feelings here. actually in practice defaults set up this way are far less efficient = than coding them in the body of the template though for serious template = writing i started to avoid using them. but that doesn't mean that it we should not have them. for the less experienced writer spcifying defaults up at the top is a) easier to = specify and b) easier to modify and c) visually easier to capture and = understand. however, my goal would be that on top of a good selection of templates = you have something like lynx sitting and allowing you to produce instances = etc from a gui interface. with a formalised description block (not existing = yet to that extend) you can even have a generic gui interface that can handle = any template file and provides sensible documentation on what can be = specified and changed to produce instances thereoff. so yes, in my opinion, the most important factor is that the syntax is = strict and not that it resembles LaTeX body syntax. > > The difference between a template and an instance could be = explained > > better. > > ah documentation. Yes that could be improved. well, i would say it could be written. actually what is needed is a real = a article about it. perhaps for tugboat > I agree that it should be cleaned up. Hopefully though those internal > names can be changed without really affecting the main interface > or packages using it. i think it can. and i would be really happy if Lars and or anybody else continues with finding further snags and then we should try at getting = it to the next level. > Thanks again for your detailed reading of the code. It is heartening > to have someone say that it is basically a good idea, modulo some > technical "features". There's always a danger that nobody likes > it at all:-) isn't that true good night (up since 4:50am and i'm gettin' ....) frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0907D.88FD7E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: More template experience

David Carlisle writes:

 > There is a general rule of optional things = using {} and mandatory things
 > using [] but perhaps since the syntax for = template declarations are so

you meant the other way around do you?

 > formalised anyway, the rules can be = different here. Frank? Chris?

they could i have to deep feelings here.

actually in practice defaults set up this way are far = less efficient than
coding them in the body of the template though for = serious template writing i
started to avoid using them.

but that doesn't mean that it we should not have them. = for the less
experienced writer spcifying defaults up at the top = is a) easier to specify
and b) easier to modify and c) visually easier to = capture and understand.

however, my goal would be that on top of a good = selection of templates you
have something like lynx sitting and allowing you to = produce instances etc
from a gui interface. with a formalised description = block (not existing yet to
that extend) you can even have a generic gui = interface that can handle any
template file and provides sensible documentation on = what can be specified and
changed to produce instances thereoff.

so yes, in my opinion, the most important factor is = that the syntax is strict
and not that it resembles LaTeX body syntax.

 > > The difference between a template and = an instance could be explained
 > > better.
 >
 > ah documentation. Yes that could be = improved.

well, i would say it could be written. actually what = is needed is a real a
article about it. perhaps for tugboat

 > I agree that it should be cleaned up. = Hopefully though those internal
 > names can be changed without really = affecting the main interface
 > or packages using it.

i think it can. and i would be really happy if Lars = and or anybody else
continues with finding further snags and then we = should try at getting it to
the next level.

 > Thanks again for your detailed reading of = the code. It is heartening
 > to have someone say that it is basically a = good idea, modulo some
 > technical "features". There's = always a danger that nobody likes
 > it at all:-)

isn't that true

good night (up since 4:50am and i'm gettin' = ....)
frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0907D.88FD7E80--