# [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles

Hans Hagen pragma at wxs.nl
Fri Mar 4 11:33:57 CET 2011

```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

-----------------------------------------------------------------