On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Aditya Mahajan <adit...@umich.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, luigi scarso wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Hans Hagen <pra...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>>
>>  Xan wrote:
>>>
>>>  Really, I did not know that. It's a messy thing that we could not define
>>>
>>>> what we like ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> it's the nature of a tex macro package; ok, i can add some strict testing
>>> for in in mkiv but even then it might just be that someone who knows th
>>> einternals (like wolfgang or wolfgang or wolfgang) wants to overload
>>> something built in by something better
>>>
>>>  why not discipline ?
>>
>> I mean something like
>> 0) context macro are ok
>> 1) \usemodule[foo] are ok (no collision with macros in 0)
>> 2) define your macros inside
>> \startPrivate[namespace]
>> ...
>> \stopPrivate
>> 3) explicit  redefinition of macros in 0,1
>>
>> by 3) should be no collision between 0,1,2
>>
>

>
> I think an easier thing to do will be to follow latex's style of
> \newcommand and \renewcommand. That is, all \definecommands should check if
> the macro is previously defined or not. If it is defined, issue a warning or
> an error. And maybe have some hook to disable the warning/error for those
> who know what they are doing.
>
yes, it's equivalent




-- 
luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 
Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Reply via email to