User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13)
            Gecko/20101230 Lanikai/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D4331D6.7050603@gmx.de>           
            <AANLkTimd0eARE5h47EHc4uCO3mmo7oExJ9E6gmt+Q=TM@mail.gmail.com>
            <28C2364F-40C8-4E1D-B36F-DDA433DA1F19@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA6C071C72B16A32397AFE082"
Message-ID:  <4D43EAE8.9020508@gmx.de>
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:24:40 +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: Arno Trautmann <Arno.Trautmann@GMX.DE>
Subject: Re: a question of style
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <28C2364F-40C8-4E1D-B36F-DDA433DA1F19@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA6C071C72B16A32397AFE082
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Will Robertson wrote:
> On 29/01/2011, at 9:39 AM, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>=20
>>> As this is ment for document level, I am tempted to use
>>> \NewDocumentCommand. But this word is longer than the whole code of t=
he
>>> macro itself, that blows some simple code really up. On the other han=
d,
>>> using \def would be very short but is not LaTeX3-ish. \cs_new:Nn does=
n't
>>> let me define something without a : at the end. Or would a \tl_new be=
 a
>>> good way?
>>
>> I don't know what the right way of doing things is. Two ways I can thi=
nk of are
>>
>> \cs_new:Npn \ie {i.\,e.}
>> \tl_new:Nn \ie {i.\,e.}
>=20
>=20
> These commands are only intended to be used for actual package code. Fo=
r my own (unpublished because it's insignificant) package for doing this,=
 I use \DeclareRobustCommand since I wrote it before I was using xparse.
>=20
> But \NewDocumentCommand is probably the way to go, although it seems ov=
er the top: (after all, consider the name -- it's for creating "document =
commands")
>=20
> 1.  You want the "newness" checking so you don't clash with some other =
possible definition of \ie
>=20
> 2.  For this type of macro it's often desirable to have "protected" com=
mands, so that the \ie is kept as a macro inside LaTeX2e-termed "moving a=
rguments" such as section headings and captions.
>=20
> But a better way to do this sort of thing would be to write something l=
ike
>=20
>     \NewDocumentCommand \NewShorthand { mm } {%
>        \NewDocumentCommand #1 {} {#2}%
>     }
>=20
> so you can then write
>=20
>     \NewShorthand \ie {i.e.}

That is not much shorter, but it is a start =85

> I actually think this idea of a "document shorthand" such as this, bein=
g a macro with no arguments (or perhaps with a very simple macro replacem=
ent rule -- say anything expandable that doesn't rely on counters or posi=
tion in the document) should be a somewhat formal construct that we defin=
e. In fact, I think it should use a different syntax than the regular "go=
bble space" undelimited macro, such as the equivalent of
>=20
>     \def\ie/{i.e.}
>=20
> which would be used in-text as "blah blah blah (\ie/, yar yar yar)" or =
"blah \ie/ yar" -- in other words, spaces are preserved after the macro. =
The reasoning being that (and I think I've said this before) even experie=
nced LaTeX authors make mistakes with things like writing "The \LaTeX Com=
panion" or whatever, and eliminating this source of error would be -- I t=
hink -- a usability improvement for people that want to use it.
>=20
> Perhaps a trailing semicolon would be a better idea; I'm not really sur=
e what the best syntax here would be. (There is a package somewhere on CT=
AN that defines shorthands using @ symbols (so you'd write, like, "@ie@")=
, but that syntax might be a bit extreme for me.)

What about adding something like \xspace automatically? Maybe with a
*-version that does not?

> But perhaps that's all being a bit prescriptionist, and just because I =
like to write like that doesn't mean we should force everyone to.

DocumentCommand is still available for everyone who does not want a
short version =85

> But besides the interface improvement with avoiding the spaces behaviou=
r, such a "shorthand" system could also be used in post-processing to con=
vert a document with author shorthands into an "expanded" document that d=
oesn't require the macros.

cheers
Arno


--------------enigA6C071C72B16A32397AFE082
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1D6ugACgkQcYXUw/rerZ40HQCfW6kyACEXpPBv8M98sQnkIBSD
XssAmgOkZvSIghMALPLUlRR3y65NL7zm
=QNQC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigA6C071C72B16A32397AFE082--