User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4A7921CF.5020803@morningstar2.co.uk>                              
            <4A86949D.3090500@morningstar2.co.uk>                              
            <4A886BA8.2000209@morningstar2.co.uk>                              
            <0417DF73-EC19-4262-B9DF-5C870D47BFCE@gmail.com>                   
            <4A893816.2090807@residenset.net>                      
            <4A89610D.8060108@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <4A8C71CC.7000006@residenset.net>
            <4A8D0048.4070101@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4A8D0A40.4030509@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:33:04 +0100
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: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: xparse
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4A8D0048.4070101@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Joseph Wright wrote:
>>  * The overall structure of the code starts with lots of little things
>> (macros concerned with parsing specific argspecs) and ends (I'm
>> guessing, from xparse-alt) with putting them together. The more literate
>> approach would be to start with the big picture -- either from the "what
>> goes on at run-time" or "what goes on at define-time" point of view --
>> so that one knows what the little things will fit into when one gets to
>> them.
> 
> This reflects how I think, I suspect. I like to start at the low level
> and work up, hence variables come first (after the lead-off), then
> internal functions, the user functions. I've divided internal functions
> into what seem to me to be logical "blocks", then I do everything
> alphabetically. So I can quickly find a function if I know its name. (I
> never read code from start to end, or even in typeset form. I always
> read it in my editor, find a function, read it, then find the next
> function, etc. So for me alphabetical is best.) In my defence, xparse
> was in roughly the same order before any changes were made by me.

I should add that I'm happy to alter things: obviously, I might need
some suggestions on an order more helpful to other people.
-- 
Joseph Wright