Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:50:30 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7N9oS0h015993 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:50:29 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7N9icXh001463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:38 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7MM1Dur032549; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:29 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 290377 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:28 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7N9iSbg030193 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:28 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7N9iOsp016190 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:27 +0200 Received: from morse.mittelbach-online.de (p54A85FC9.dip.t-dialin.net [84.168.95.201]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKuxg-1Mf9cd34CN-000RL8; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:23 +0200 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id C24AD6F12D; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:20 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <4A7921CF.5020803@morningstar2.co.uk> <4A8EC449.4040509@morningstar2.co.uk> <19088.5371.517713.176151@morse.mittelbach-online.de> <4A905FB5.8020201@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX181R+DQ1e+CtbzDdjaht+lxb6NqfGPDyupCv6f hafyGYjNeB0TksVk7J+Li8110yXWwJrStbm+BNN6EWpdYvPIM6 I9JVGP15QkL3nF5FtCWCw== X-Spam-Whitelist-Provider: Message-ID: <19089.3956.753050.556360@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:44:20 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: xparse To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <4A905FB5.8020201@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -106.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2009 09:50:30.0221 (UTC) FILETIME=[265F6FD0:01CA23D7] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5983 Joseph Wright writes: > > > > if we accept that the current xparse is really xparse-2e (whether we call > > it that or not) then one consequence from this for me is that xparse-2e > > should offer the possibility to define commands with a syntax that fits > > current 2e. > > Not quite sure I follow the paragraph! sorry not very clear I agree. This remark was largely due to a misunderstanding on my part from reading the current documentation For example \foo {[}bar]{baz} shouldn't be interpreted as \foo[bar]{baz} (which it isn't, except in a special extension). So I guess current xparse does provide the right level of mimicking 2e syntax (even if the optional arg magic is a slight deviation from current practice) - in short ignore the remark > > I would expect that once we have a clearer picture of how to do the separation > > between layer -1 and layer 0 all this needs rewriting anyway > > > > I also hope (and expect) that once we are clear on how to write specifications > > for layer 0 properly, that other interfaces for layer -1 will be written, both > > because more than one might be needed and because we need some trials to > > settle on what we want to promote as that standard layer -1 for latex3 > > As you probably realise, my overall feeling is that for many (most?) end > users, a LaTeX2e-like syntax will remain the best way to use LaTeX > whatever we deliver as LaTeX3. agreed, but that doesn't mean that it (the final standard syntax) is equal to 2e syntax > So xparse having a mainly LaTeX2e-like focus does not worry me too > much. I'd say that I think the underlying idea is a bit more flexible than > just forming LaTeX syntax (as we use abstract concepts such as "optional > argument" in preference to more concrete ones such as "argument delimited > by "[" ... "]"). it doesn't worry me at all, as far as my sentiments are going I'm not really concerned about the precise layer -1 syntax at all at this stage - any will do. But I also see the need for experiments and a clean separation (which we don't have yet) between layer -1 and layer 0 would make this easier. This does not prohibit us to provide a stable version for now even if imperfect. On the contrary, I agree that it is needed to allow using the more interesting parts and I also agree that it looks like xparse is fitting that bill. On the other hand I would probably prefer the current state to be called xparse-2e and run with that as stable. Then Bill, for example, could easily build a matching xparse-gellmu and promote using this document level syntax for accessing the other latex3 layers, etc. And we can leave the name xparse for a more "final" interface version. frank