Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with SMTP id p2KEtcwT027655 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:55:39 +0100 Received: (qmail 31275 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2011 14:55:33 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2011 14:55:31 -0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.100.212] by mx0.gmx.net (mx069) with SMTP; 20 Mar 2011 15:55:31 +0100 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 p2KErVKL021788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:53:31 +0100 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 p2JN13wl025463; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:53:30 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1206522 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:53:30 +0100 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 p2KErTfX004410 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:53:29 +0100 Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com (mail-iw0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2KErOmo018434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:53:28 +0100 Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so8836560iwn.22 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.222.5 with SMTP id ie5mr5004448icb.331.1300632803740; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.108] (114-30-115-229.ip.adam.com.au [114.30.115.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm3737002iba.4.2011.03.20.07.53.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:53:22 -0700 (PDT) References: <11D1CF78-B9D9-4E69-AF07-972B52093D17@gmail.com> <4D860EEF.1010206@morningstar2.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8F190) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8F190) X-Spam-Whitelist: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id p2KErUfX004411 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:23:23 +1030 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Will Robertson Subject: Re: expl3 translation of the NFSS To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <4D860EEF.1010206@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=5D7Q89H36p4U4jfdfC5HDevlx1X2sAZgAaLl3DbFfW0PXxL7WgvovMFXXSEPrACW/b9IW Qp+GhEViZlUW4mdBntgP1X8KwB5tjHCA/yxSZMu7BXBiPs3ujyaoi2xLHDqpg8dk65Dhpb3Lg0c1 iTjGg==V1; X-Resent-By: Forwarder X-Resent-For: rainer.schoepf@gmx.net X-Resent-To: rainer@rainer-schoepf.de Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6694 On 21/03/2011, at 12:57 AM, Joseph Wright wrote: > Impressive that you've got this far, but a quick look at the code does > flag up a potential danger from this approach. You're pretty much tied > to what seemed like a good idea at the time in terms of > _implementation_, not just in terms of interface. The later is pretty > good, I think we all agree, but I'm not sure I would choose anything > like the same implementation. Perhaps we first need a LaTeX3 translation > of the current code as you say, in order to see where to go. Right, my only goal so far is a relatively straightforward translation. Since we already have a well-tested codebase and an interface to remain compatible with, this seemed the best way to start. (I'm much more of the philosophy of evolving from the inside out; I very rarely like to rewrite code from scratch.) There are some aspects of the implementation that have had somewhat of an impedance mismatch with expl3 (e.g., delimited data inside a sequence is probably better put inside a property list) but on the whole it's worked well. Once the implementation is working (there are some headaches to think about when replacing the NFSS) and we've got some nice test files working then we'll be in a better state to start ripping the guts out if necessary. Consolidating the implementation and shaking out the cobwebs should give us a good indication of what is still working well and what would be better replaced nowadays by an alternate approach. Will