![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a4358949522f2efc1bab8ed68385b00c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:55:19 +0100, Adam Lindsay
Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:36:02 -0600:
In any case whatever high-level framework we come up with should largely be determined by your decision on the low/mid-level framework.
See, I beg to differ.
I agree with virtually everything u said, but _maybe_ u missed my point:-)) If Hans either implements a) >2-char swutch support; or b) \sizea(b)(c) etc, it affects whether the high-level framework will need to use capital 2-char switches or have the option of using unrestricted lower-case switches in whatever framework we agree on. Your point is on the framework being _mentioned_, mine was on the language _used_ to mention the framework (perhaps I should have made that clearer). The logic of the framework used should be largely independent, but the language we use to mention it partly depends on the internal implementation. I look forward to our final consensus! Best Idris -- Professor Idris Samawi Hamid Department of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523