Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:52:20 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i9CBqvrT008211 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:52:57 +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 i9CBkKuB020199; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:46:20 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4B051.EDB33200" 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 i9BDwloj011246; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:45:21 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 664271 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:45:21 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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 i9CBjLRP026380 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:45:21 +0200 Received: from mmp1 (student.cbs.dk [130.226.47.78]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9CBjg4i017859 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:45:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from conversion-daemon.mmp1.student.cbs.dk by mmp1.student.cbs.dk (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003)) id for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:44:16 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time) Received: from mail.student.cbs.dk ([62.79.111.222]) by mmp1.student.cbs.dk (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003)) with ESMTPA id for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:44:16 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time) In-Reply-To: References: Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2004 11:52:20.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE04FB80:01C4B051] User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3869) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at proteosys.com X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0 () Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: naming conventions LaTeX3 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: naming conventions LaTeX3 Thread-Index: AcSwUe4pM8Dm3EnETUOwjWVcawfKEA== From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Morten_H=F8gholm?= Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4814 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B051.EDB33200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:27:53 +0200, Hendri Adriaens = wrote: Hi Henri, > 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. That is not my experience. The times I've had to use the "w" type has = been in situations where I needed to gobble a user command that happened to take an optional argument. And in those cases the reason has been that I didn't use xparse. If I did I would define those user commands as something like this: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{xparse,ldcsetup} \InternalSyntaxOn \def\MH_test_user_command:nn #1 #2 {#1,#2} \DeclareDocumentCommand \usercommand { O{`opt'} m } { \MH_test_user_command:nn {#1}{#2} } \begin{document} \usercommand{uu} \usercommand[xx]{uu} \end{document} Then gobbling is done on the internal macro when needed. Perhaps you can think of other cases - if so don't hesitate to post = them. -- Morten H=F8gholm ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B051.EDB33200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: naming conventions LaTeX3

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:27:53 +0200, Hendri Adriaens = <Hendri@UVT.NL> wrote:

Hi Henri,

> 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.

That is not my experience. The times I've had to use = the "w" type has been
in situations where I needed to gobble a user command = that happened to
take an optional argument. And in those cases the = reason has been that I
didn't use xparse. If I did I would define those user = commands as
something like this:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xparse,ldcsetup}
\InternalSyntaxOn

\def\MH_test_user_command:nn #1 #2 {#1,#2}
\DeclareDocumentCommand \usercommand { O{`opt'} m = }
   { \MH_test_user_command:nn {#1}{#2} = }

\begin{document}
\usercommand{uu}

\usercommand[xx]{uu}
\end{document}

Then gobbling is done on the internal macro when = needed.

Perhaps you can think of other cases - if so don't = hesitate to post them.
--
Morten H=F8gholm

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4B051.EDB33200--