[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packages/modules
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Packages/modules |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:50:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.01.2020, 11:43 +0100 schrieb Urs Liska:
>>
>> You mean that a package has to export every function or variable
>> separately? I think that would be good wrt self-documentation.
>>
>
> This gave me another idea: How would it be if elements (functions,
> variables, whatever) exported by packages would have to be addressed
> through a package namespace:
>
> * scholarly.annotate exports \criticalRemark
> * this can't be used with \criticalRemark but (syntax of course up to
> the parser maintainer ;-) ) \scholarly.annotate.criticalRemark
The implementation of \x.y.z is not robust enough for that, it's a
nuisance, and judging from LaTeX experience, it does not seem to be
problem in practice.
> That way the global namespace would be less pollutable, and identical
> names in different packages wouldn't be an issue.
>
> A user can still do something like
>
> criticalRemark = scholarly.annotate.criticalRemark
>
> as a local shorthand.
No, that would be equivalent to
criticalRemark = #'(scholarly annotate criticalRemark)
--
David Kastrup
- Extension management, first sketch, Urs Liska, 2020/01/20
- Re: Extension management, first sketch, Urs Liska, 2020/01/20
- Re: Extension management, first sketch, David Kastrup, 2020/01/20
- Packages/modules (was: Extension management, first sketch), Urs Liska, 2020/01/20
- Re: Packages/modules, David Kastrup, 2020/01/20
- Re: Packages/modules, Urs Liska, 2020/01/21
- Re: Packages/modules, Urs Liska, 2020/01/22
- Re: Packages/modules, David Kastrup, 2020/01/22
- Re: Packages/modules, Urs Liska, 2020/01/22
- Re: Packages/modules, Urs Liska, 2020/01/23
- Re: Packages/modules,
David Kastrup <=