Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org> 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
