MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <501AA3AA.5000400@gmail.com> <501AA936.9050205@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <CANQYN6zoBtCmA2QczWY6Y4+3AvKUQKaNRX0QWtdhKePpbVWKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
            <CAFUtaNH9ObvaskLSgvxhGS8we2NjwzE2h2dirJHBzAtSML51VQ@mail.gmail.com>
            <CANQYN6w8Qs=qd6ey6+0wv0q6LN8K4QRByTvn62d8EyZ8OpPOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
            <4453C269-8281-443D-A548-C9B49B4E37B4@gmail.com>
            <501E3630.1060607@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-ID:  <CANQYN6yzgqHU5PSrmdd-RrHOfqHYVoJodmB=FGac8u7wkPB81A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:34:43 +0200
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: Bruno Le Floch <blflatex@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: l3doc bug in syntax sections
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <501E3630.1060607@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 8/5/12, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 05:16, Will Robertson wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012, at 9:53 PM, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>>
>>> Admittedly, none of the three "solutions" is great.  As Joseph notes,
>>> we've gone for a single line in the l3 source.  We could perhaps add
>>> \def\^^M{\unskip\space\ignorespaces} to the \begin{syntax} setup: this
>>> would allow
>>>
>>>    \cs{some_function_with_a_very_long_name:nnnnn} \
>>>      \Arg{first argument} \Arg{second argument} \
>>>      \Arg{third argument} \Arg{fourth argument} \
>>>      \Arg{fifth argument}
>>
>> I've been thinking for a while that having \obeylines in the syntax
>> environment (which predates my involvement on this code IIRC) has made
>> certain things rather awkward.
>>
>> It would be an annoying change to have to implement in our sources, but
>> what do you think about dropping \obeylines?
>>
>> -- Will
> Seems sensible to me: we've altered how we approach using this
> environment, and \obeylines is probably not that helpful.
> --
> Joseph Wright

I agree, we've moved towards using the active characters less and \cs,
\meta, \Arg more.  Perhaps there could be an option "syntax-active =
false" to completely disable active characters in the syntax blocks?

-- Bruno