Comments on: Choice options http://www.texdev.net/2008/12/28/47/ Coding in the TeX world Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:29:59 +0000 hourly 1 By: josephwright http://www.texdev.net/2008/12/28/47/#comment-11 josephwright Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:02:00 +0000 http://texdev.wordpress.com/?p=47#comment-11 Not a bad idea. I'm thinking along the same lines (I don't think lots of one-off options are particularly helpful). Not a bad idea. I’m thinking along the same lines (I don’t think lots of one-off options are particularly helpful).

]]> By: Will http://www.texdev.net/2008/12/28/47/#comment-10 Will Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:15:14 +0000 http://texdev.wordpress.com/?p=47#comment-10 Generally I would tend to go with the 'literal input' method, because it involves less learning on the part of the user -- if they already know the commands for thinspace, or whatever, then they don't need to remember if they need to write "thinspace" or "thin space" or "thinsp". I guess the reverse argument is that writing ={\,} isn't very meaningful, and it's better to write as semantically as possible. Perhaps a compromise solution might be to only accept literal input but then also provide commands like \thinspace, \thickspace, etc., where they're not already defined. And then give a nice list of sensible possible options in the documentation. Generally I would tend to go with the ‘literal input’ method, because it involves less learning on the part of the user — if they already know the commands for thinspace, or whatever, then they don’t need to remember if they need to write “thinspace” or “thin space” or “thinsp”.

I guess the reverse argument is that writing ={\,} isn’t very meaningful, and it’s better to write as semantically as possible.

Perhaps a compromise solution might be to only accept literal input but then also provide commands like \thinspace, \thickspace, etc., where they’re not already defined. And then give a nice list of sensible possible options in the documentation.

]]>