MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5366C875.9040709@googlemail.com>
            <5367453E.3030906@morningstar2.co.uk> <5369962B.2020905@gmail.com>
            <5369D54F.10503@googlemail.com>
            <5369E218.4090809@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <536BCCC6.7050902@googlemail.com>
            <CANQYN6yRLaW6nfTYVmgsLer5DomPpxTv-_nRwe1H6r46PZsJjA@mail.gmail.com>
            <5384B7E2.6080801@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-ID:  <CANQYN6xN-=HgXx9P5TgbntCO6GNWUy3hXZ8T8J_0frvKZ2r5ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Tue, 27 May 2014 12:12:05 -0400
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: \__dim_strip_bp:n
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <5384B7E2.6080801@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 5/27/14, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/05/2014 16:58, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>> I tend to agree with you that we should not let \__dim_strip_pt:n and
>> \__dim_strip_bp:n accept arbitrary junk.  That's easy to change, as
>> they are only used internally.  On the other hand, the public
>> \dim_to_pt:n and \dim_to_unit:n are documented as allowing multiple
>> units, for the use-case Joseph describes.
>
> If you look over the current actual uses in the LaTeX kernel, they are
> focussed purely on some aspects of font use. I suspect we'd be better,
> long-term, to allow this sort of thing if at all only at the interface
> layer, and to have all of the 'general' code stuff expect 'well defined'
> dimensions. Means a doc change, but I feel an reasonable one.

My worry is not about doc changes, but about people who might be using
\dim_to_pt:n "in the wild".  We'd be breaking code.  Can we have a
deprecation period?

Bruno