Message-ID:  <14330.1288266842@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date:         Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:54:02 +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: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: New "interfaces" package
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:08:32 +0200. 
              <452678254.130451.1288264112388.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb011>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Uwe Lueck <uwe.lueck@WEB.DE> wrote:

> Somewhat contrary to Will: the "endorsed" packages needn't be loaded
> unless the user chooses an option that needs a certain package. This
> way such an interface would "support" or "cover" certain packages,
> rather than "endorsing" some. 

agreed.

and (from reading the docs) there seems no reason why the average
package-writer-on-the-street should not write his own
interfaces-pwots-package to tie in with interfaces.  (note, i've not
actually read the code yet, so i may be wrong here.

> This also reminds me of memoir.cls, "endorsing" (copying) certain
> "standard" packages; yet I have never studied by which commands the
> features of those packages are accessed by the user. 

memoir uses the code of packages that peter wilson wrote as he was
designing ... memoir.  i don't think i would have spotted the purpose of
the packages if peter hadn't occasionally mentioned it when submitting
packages.

as a development strategy, it seems quite neat, to me ... but it does
make faq answer-writing a little tortuous: "you can use memoir or
koma-script or package x, y or z to do this; package y is actually part
of memoir".

robin