On 4-3-2011 12:55, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
I also like \<module>_<command>. That is better than \<module><command> that I have been using. Of course, this means that _ should not have its usual meaning. I haven't checked on how \unprotect works in MkII. If it makes _ a letter, then I'll switch to \<module>_<command>.
the main disadvantage of _ (at least in the past) is that it can get invisible on a low res screen
Another option might be to use \<module>.<command> with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel.
indeed, but unfortunately it clashes with . being other in dimensions (althoug i can imagine that we patch luatex to accept it)
I know that \do \dodo \dododo is not the best notation, but I don't find _ __ ___ better.
I don’t like the __ and ___ either but do you know a better way for good names without using do, dodo, nodo, yes or nop?
we can have module_do_bla or module_x_bla module_xx_bla etc
I find that \module__command and \module___command are hard to distinguish. For helper macros, a better idea might be:
\module_command \module_command! \module_command!!
or \module_!_command \module_!!_command
These commands are easy to distinguish visually. But this will not work for too well for three or four levels. I think that none of the schemes look good for three or four levels. Perhaps we could mix both existing schemes to get something reasonable:
\module_command \module_command! \module_command!do \module_command!redo
or maybe
\module_command \module_command_one \module_command_two \module_command_three
or \module_command_a \module_command_b \module_command_aa (used by _a) etc actually we can use ^ if we want: \module_^_command \module_^^_command Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------