Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:44:41 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i9C8jHrT006760 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:45:18 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.176]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9C8cRuB007602; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:38:27 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4B037.B6D02280" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.176]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i9BDwliR011246; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:37:03 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 663590 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:37:03 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i9C8R3RP023112 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:27:03 +0200 Received: from babbage.uvt.nl (babbage.uvt.nl [137.56.247.14]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9C8RR4i004237 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:27:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pi2326 (pi2326.uvt.nl [137.56.45.40]) by babbage.uvt.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5-UvT-15) with SMTP id i9C8RPQd002162 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:27:25 +0200 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2004 08:44:41.0519 (UTC) FILETIME=[B71F53F0:01C4B037] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at proteosys.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4, required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20 X-Spam-Level: x-spam-flag: No X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0 () x-spam-cookie: 8e882b0e746e7c1d10bd5091a37d2a13306bb6d3 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: naming conventions LaTeX3 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:27:53 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: naming conventions LaTeX3 Thread-Index: AcSwN7dBvCNt2om6T8yHAbQRSucX3g== From: "Hendri Adriaens" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4813 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B037.B6D02280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I am trying to read up with all of the work that has already been done on the LaTeX3 project. When reading the docs on the new naming conventions, I thought about the following: Will the rules be general enough to cope with most future situations? I fear that a lot of macros (especially internal macros) will fall in the :w category which will make the convention less informative. Looking forward to your reactions. Best regards, -Hendri Adriaens. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B037.B6D02280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable naming conventions LaTeX3

Hi,

I am trying to read up with all of the work that = has
already been done on the LaTeX3 project.

When reading the docs on the new naming = conventions,
I thought about the following:
Will the rules be general enough to cope with most = future
situations? I fear that a lot of macros (especially = internal
macros) will fall in the :w category which will make = the
convention less informative.

Looking forward to your reactions. Best = regards,
-Hendri Adriaens.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B037.B6D02280--