MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <LISTSERV%200809170916513116.0157@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Message-ID:  <27990a880809170056g113ef10eyc6150aa9b3b4b3e7@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:26:52 +0930
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Package options
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <LISTSERV%200809170916513116.0157@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Joseph Wright
<joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
> Thinking about this some more, I suspect that the current approach I've
> taken with xnotes2bib is the best path for the moment: no package options
> just yet, but once things are clearer they will be added.
>
> I guess more work on the overall structure of the kernel is needed before
> things like package loading can be seriously tackled.

The closest thing I can imagine to doing this is a class that changes
these sorts of fundamental behaviours. Since we can always fall back
on the trusty alernative to "real" package options
  \mypackagesetup{ key=val }
I think you're right that, at this stage, it's better to wait before
committing to any particular document-level interface.

Cheers,
Will