Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id s837xo0T021437 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:59:51 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by mx-ha.gmx.net (mxgmx002) with ESMTPS (Nemesis) id 0MGR1c-1XcL1C3FbM-00DIN3 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:59:43 +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 s837uxgs018359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:57:00 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s837XXaw025291; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:56:59 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 11304431 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:54:46 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s837sjmw007340 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:54:45 +0200 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.130]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id s837sWQJ014098 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:54:35 +0200 Received: from mittelbach-online.de (p4FEE4805.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.238.72.5]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreue005) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LvxEH-1YUIUf2zfh-017pl6; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:54:32 +0200 Received: from [192.168.123.113] (mittelba1 [192.168.123.113]) (Authenticated sender: frank) by mittelbach-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64A102853D1 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:54:29 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <53F667E1.8080909@morningstar2.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-ID: 64A102853D1.A2F2B X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X-MailScanner-From: frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:/Aahrw8icAF1GY0W76A4mniw1puc8VwMMe62lr4RGV2 nK94pmGrTcxu6Q+5uDwx8hKBk+N2zfj72QwzzDZUMP7YHlInSo Uaort/VViSGQiqImJ4OEklZ5nxzDNs3VOJdVrRtGRNC9db0fTc yIBLO5paLR2nPbn05l0H6S4gThGJE08EAmMdj9CkVd1LTubXne nqz/otj39snnybdLi9y3n3gn6zRQj++/3OanW4N8aAjTAvIH9w M7iEeGRa1mStlTlkL0jg0nqFrzZ+j38d121Qn0f7hLIoF8ss47 KLyRRUbpMw204A0Nxjx7Cs5QqxEg+VeZ1DZGVc084WP+mHvwfv 3fAJL4OoXlc0d5CABoEDETmn+0O8tADU7m9BrxMdO Message-ID: <5406C934.3040300@latex-project.org> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:54:28 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Mittelbach, Frank" Subject: Re: Thoughts on xtemplate To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <53F667E1.8080909@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Envelope-To: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=V3; X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found) X-UI-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:LrmfobD48is=:PpB+3PMJl+eJ+JZks73IyIQaNq usghTHLAqy/jKy/GdbZiADA8ZL0pwU+iclSIFGO0wtLUy3fRj5Sl7iMXbxPxCHNsO/BvGonwt CytYQNeSSh+IOk/s1vKqfwXFkdg51WU3gzY2wN3C3xJHYbg4G4v8vaiMEslQPVnXSNpMaBxs3 FpiU5hSL87USZce6iIoiEDjVxGw7/HBACr3MrJxT00PVNxfpVWEOZ5KW4a9aeWEWN41VlBRkh K5uTGbA3ha82Ydg4SASeEWKZmgt+2YGIPqr8425pwK2gC1UWi7QVaIivu9tl4GrElYUuA4nXR jyKLgs9yey1I0CGESdEKhumd/9lWk2Qtq5ea8eWruLB3fQFmJOKmk1WZ3rA6glfPafE3iQw88 IyvC0Ag0azp09VpuDmkZRag2BLTY6RFdIIFwI4WmDQkx39fSJYsAUGWtHJygfmkV1g6hnoMcU MM/Rg+Q69kQHbUWm9r0JvtBZI8PtInty8af2gSsWMsdHKYiGLWqzz+65lxCN5O3+sbhbqzo7j ky+JOkK/66Cp/bBbBNjzMldJ6nhzgFbnTY7+jx+7WqKIO+h+KiQDHEpm3wRMKlSK4tbKKGv4B romqDqBB9EpsWPm5ad9L2MxjH9MLAkYl9ilROpkXg/7vdnfEY7fGiWDT+UiXw29rRCltrR96A THWjQZYT9SfLMUaxRSblLCK02IJNlpYE5K+8WSnIp9EfCpoIMMljD2qvRVEs+ooYZkHFvYDB1 /Kj/SOCwRWv1XvewdzPx53MjtJVDcUOmhEnPc9M4Z2Ci6TD78rmED8Rki3jJrm21HjOxeqxk2 aLsaGsEtkVnqNO0n4EP5jQcFKvazvdZsdiMMQH8B+M6CLk20kWeyWqBoMT/L/h16Cp9FeKCAe NSkovnWqBDN5ViAgnLD8j2kyvRYBqVPxVCmhrnh3nigqpRpRSPFANK6Y9MHKnGU8Tb9Alxo8O mLdDbr49YSUF6BdUnEFodBWn43Bcvv6MxrbtDJpV+Sxwbw+ePQPh3W3PBOpL47UcXUr79kER4 FiXw3lP3ttCQXDMsXj9AI4rKPNX5RrBg8GaHoD1nFnymTLSe0YaXUOsq7IHlVkBL6PZHZwTL7 Rf/paBoDdAsrFJzN5/Rc/Glu+56sMyZPMvbzAf/Z9OgZVgWSl1Yvo5zjDmF1S1Sg3TWp3Pzgq 8qHP2pOo/oXD0CCl9fTqhMzeOHMmajyyprMxpfG9smxQNKE5C3EFvogTazF3QAjNsCYKapK6o DfrN3Gj0uRrmW1jPon3LlIl0sJETceXe40DL5VkqlUXorhnYp0klXgxaeiTXBrFVvZqvmaZEP iPNYjM4d2V+kKEtYRlQjAM55+42bJOkcm/Q8jXi3IMbR0EbN/gPSVyjiF6TdHuLTALXkFJ8Xc YU5mXKpfIxM54eUYEXpVTrlYybBXd7R1Lh6E9lrrt2lR9+9OLlDsWJE2xnVTnbRuYaqdugYnb TUxSQ3P4kgt+LNi9Dvfo2YB/LjoilzIzgrCG6yDUUVwBfRTD8zQDR1KBya6V9CoaeLwk2Ho4Q vMojSIglF5CxvwoXbsjFMMn6f89B+YRfNCZCc5fTdAn+VaKamwb1CAFYD0QZBOHWZ944/Hzof NRn3bbW4oVcP/xjvblupwfEYsZzn4rDSAp6Sh7ywLvoRDw9jexgagCnR1B7/ZdXxFJAkIw0Cb UVqA3HphU5F3WRMEnqJn18oj9fvqIV9RtzJdAcEViEqaHQjegDKPAFqHNfaGfvNOhI= X-UI-Loop:V01:ZxlQogEnoPY=:yAJ5qvPEovCQMascEkr0h5pO5S31bAGBZFZQBDfIu7k= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7591 On 21.08.2014 23:42, Joseph Wright wrote: > On 20/08/2014 01:23, Allred, Sean wrote: >> I've drawn up a syntax proposal >> (as >> an Org file) on GitHub: > > One thing I think to consider is the lesson of LaTeX(2e) in that a small > number of positional-based mandatory arguments work well as a user. > That's something I'd certainly expect to see in any new code too. I agree but this is a document interface question and quite independent of the designer layer. There is no reason, whatsoever, that the transition from gui layer to designer layer couldn't turn positional arguments (and or a mixture of 2e type optionals) into anything on the designer layer, be it mandatory positional arguments or key/val pairs > > The issue with mixing up mandatory and optional arguments in an > object/template set up is that this then looks less clear (how many > arguments must a TeX-like document-level interface require?). be careful with that: even the mandatory template args (that are now positional ones) do not translate to mandatory args on the user interface, there they might as well be optional and defaults are generated when passing them to the template so there isn't really much in terms or relationship of "mandatory" between the two layers. > Almost > certainly the number of truly *required* arguments will remain small, > and while the case that a design should not be limited by TeX is quite > true, and the same time a design interface that fundamentally fails to > translate to a TeX-based user layer is a problem too. The number of required args will indeed be small which is why I think the designer layer could implement them as mandatory positional args despite the inherited limitation of 9. However, given that this would be a one-time parsing effort between two layers I lean towards key/val here too as it will make the designer layer easier to read. Neither way I see that this fundamentally fails to translate a TeX-based user layer. frank