[NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
adityam at umich.edu
Fri Mar 4 00:55:45 CET 2011
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
>> I am a bit surprised by the naming of the internal macros:
> I liked the LaTeX3 system to have names in the form \<module>_<command>,
> with this you have a easy way to protect internal commands and to avoid
> command clashes,
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>.
Another option might be to use \<module>.<command> with . having the right
catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel.
> e.g. you define the command \getfirstcharacter in your
> filter module but this name is already used in the core (syst-aux.mkiv)
> and with the name \filter_getfirstcharacter you can avoid this without
> thinking too much about a good name.
I didn't know that. I'll change that name.
So far, I have been using \externafillter<command> for
most commands, and sometimes it gets unreadable.
>> 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?
I find that \module__command and \module___command are hard to
distinguish. For helper macros, a better idea might be:
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:
More information about the ntg-context