On 2021-Mar-17, Daniel Verite wrote: > Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > For consistency with the existing \if … \endif, ISTM that it could have > > been named \batch … \endbatch or \pipeline … \endpipeline? > > "start" mirrors "end". To me, the analogy with \if-\endif is not > obvious. > Grammatically \if is meant to introduce the expression after it, > whereas \startpipeline takes no argument. > Functionally \startpipeline can be thought as "open the valve" > and \endpipeline "close the valve". They're "call-to-action" kinds of > commands, and in that sense quite different from the \if-\endif pair.
I forgot to reply to this, but I did consider the naming of these commands before commit, and I tend to side with Daniel here. I think it's not totally unreasonable to have in the future another command \syncpipeline which sends does PQpipelineSync(); if the commands are \pipeline and \endpipeline then a \syncpipeline in the middle makes less sense than if they are \startpipeline and \endpipeline. I grant this is quite subjective, though. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
