MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <4A8986E9.5090209@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <3F0FECF5-03FB-44C2-99D6-07C3F6987F05@gmail.com>
            <19083.59487.548225.750361@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
            <4A8BF36D.6040000@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <19083.65388.211120.732256@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
            <4A8C1547.4030408@morningstar2.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <19084.8165.557822.97482@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:53:09 +0200
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: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: template types
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4A8C1547.4030408@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Joseph Wright writes:

 > >  > (Based on the \cs_set:Nn idea, I'm not keen on repeating the number of
 > >  > arguments here: should be picked up from the type.)
 > > 
 > > yes it could but I'm personally not too keen on this kind of indirection
 > > but that again is a totally separate discussion and should worry us now.
 > 
 > I assume "should *not* worry us now". There are several things to

yes. *not* ... one unfotunately often has to add or remove such little words
from my mails, mea culpa

 > decide, of course, but if we can get them discussed over not too long a
 > period it would be good.  I'll perhaps come back to this issue, and some
 > other naming ones, in another mail.

agreed. not "too long" but also not necessary incremental while we are still
in the process of understanding/re-evaluating concepts.

I mean, at the start of the thread you had already eliminated the "type" level
altogether and below we start thinking about looking at the whole  concept
from yet another light

 > Following my modified example:
 > 
 > \DeclareTemplateInstance { sectioning } { starts-new-page }
 >   { chapter } { <keys> }
 > \DeclareTemplateInstance { sectioning } { space-before-and-after }
 >   { section } { <keys> }
 > \DeclareTemplateInstance { sectioning } { space-before-and-after }
 >   { subsection } { <keys> }
 > \DeclareTemplateInstance { sectioning } { space-before-and-after }
 >   { subsubsection } { <keys> }

yep, I think we are in agreement on what is meant

 > My general concern is to try to get template to the point where things
 > won't change again at the interface level. So I'm keen we agree on
 > things like naming and argument order, as in the longer term it's
 > important.

yes, agreed, but rather than incrementally changing things back an forth I
would like to mentally get at the desired picture first. That still might
involve some level of iteration if we notice that things don't seem to quite
fit once we try them in real life


 > From what you say, it sounds as if we are better looking at things a
 > slightly different way. The key connection is between instances and
 > types, with templates as a likely but not essential "glue". So is
 > something like:
 > 
 > \DeclareInstanceType         (was \DeclareTemplateType)
 > \DeclareTemplate             (no change)
 > \DeclareInstanceFromTemplate (was \DeclareInstance)
 > \UseInstance                 (no change)
 > 
 > any more logical?  In that way, you can imagine declaring an instance in
 > some other way than from a template. I'm not looking for change for
 > changes sake, but am trying to make sure that things are as clear as
 > possible for anyone using the system.

yes that seems to be much more in line with how I'm thinking about it. let's
keep that as a candidate and let it settle a bit (get a feel for it)

frank