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 q7L8vfVn031767 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:57:43 +0200 Received: (qmail 5551 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2012 08:57:36 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2012 08:57:36 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx044) with SMTP; 21 Aug 2012 10:57:36 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7L8tceD031510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:39 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q7L8kiBC016221; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:39 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 2247845 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:38 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q7L8tct6029133 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:38 +0200 Received: from smtp.demon.co.uk (mdfmta009.mxout.tbr.inty.net [91.221.168.50]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q7L8tR4n017353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:30 +0200 Received: from mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3103384081 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:55:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C51384080 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:55:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from palladium.local (unknown [80.176.134.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:55:26 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5032A298.9000004@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MDF-HostID: 4 Message-ID: <50334CFD.1040808@morningstar2.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:55:25 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Joseph Wright Subject: Re: l3doc: \tn vs. \cs To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Sender is in whitelist: joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK); Detail=5D7Q89H36p4L00VTXC6D4q0N+AH0PUCnBi0P5cROEGjO+pG7NAH/K+tf9SrVFtpLrKONl 2T9EL4W4U4jgzLbnCcGpk1z/zwmKT/K1fv3lD0=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: 7132 On 20/08/2012 23:08, Joel C. Salomon wrote: > I'm afraid I'm still seeing an ambiguity. > > For xpeek, I've put almost all command-words not defined in the > package itself into \DoNotIndex. And actually, the only LaTeX2e > commands I talk about are \textit, \nocorrlist, \xspace, and > \xspaceaddexceptions; if (for example) some formatting difference were > to be applied to LaTeX2e commands, these would be good candidates for > such. > > On the other hand, I'm using qstest's \Expect (LaTeX2e), as well as a > wrapper (\ExpectIdenticalWidths) I'm defining with xparse's > \NewDocumentCommand. Does it make sense for me to index and/or > display these at all differently? > > On the gripping hand, I imagine that on the wish list for \cs is some > intelligence to index variables and namespaced functions separately. > (E.g., \l_tmpa_bool nowhere near \lua_now:n, but \__int_eval:w > somewhere close to \int_eval:n.) By this token, user commands might > well go elsewhere entirely. If \cs="command sequence" and \tn="TeX > name", perhaps \uc="user command"? We've not used \DoNotIndex at all in the team's LaTeX3 code, so our indexes show every command. We've not actually discussed this as a policy, but one can see an argument for indexing everything, as definition and use will be separate in any case. At least part of an argument here is that for 'users' you should not need to typeset the code part, so the index will not show stuff from outside a module anyway. We've used \tn almost entirely within the implementation part of a .dtx, with mainly \cs in the documentation part. (We've also use verbatim for cases where the cs should not be indexed at all.) There, \tn is used for primitives and things which are clearly 'LaTeX2e-based', such as \@ifnextchar, rather than 'LaTeX interface' based, such as \textit. (I'd expect the latter to remain in a stand-alone LaTeX3 format.) -- Joseph Wright