Am 04.03.2011 um 11:33 schrieb Hans Hagen: >>> 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 think module_bla, module_bla_do, module_bla_redo etc. is better >> 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 In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you replace only the _ by ! >> 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) +1 > etc > > actually we can use ^ if we want: > > \module_^_command > \module_^^_command Just another form of module_!_command or module__command. Wolfgang ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
