Hi David,
I’m afraid I don’t follow all of your writing, probably because I don’t
have an understanding of how/why an “amended copy” of a \book {} would
be used, as in
On 07/08/2026 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
bookA = \book { ... }
bookB = \bookpart { ... }
\book { \bookA ... }
which would mean to create a book as an amended copy of \bookA
In my understanding, there is or should be a direct relation between
\book{} statements and output files. One \book{} statement can
correspond to 0 or 1 output files per backend/output file format, but
never two. Allowing syntax like
\book { \book {} }
or
\book {
\book {}
\book {}
}
would not make sense based on that direct relation and only lead to
confusion. Am I wrong? Is there ever a use case that would necessitate
nested \book{} environments?
Hence I would strongly lean toward this:
On 07/08/2026 20:21, David Kastrup wrote:
[Possibility 1:] a book or bookpart gets stamped at creation
for being one or the other depending on whether it is done using \book
or \bookpart. This is sticky and determines the allowable use.
Having a hard and fast rule here creates clarity and leads users toward
structuring their projects in an understandable and useful way.
On 07/08/2026 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
For rearranging an existing source into something that is only a part of
a larger document, the current relative fluidity between book and
bookpart may be convenient.
It may be convenient, but allows for tangled up projects that are hard
to understand and maintain.
Best, Simon
