Saturday, January 19, 2002 Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
MK> * Berend de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-01-19 19:07:18 +0100): >> 1. What is a well-defined module interface? You have \usemodule. A >> module is just any ConTeXt file for now. MK> Exactly. But what about MK> - module parameters ConTeXt is extremely parameter driven: just have a look at how parameters are parsed by ConTeXt core code and use the same on your module: define an appropriate \setupwhatever relative to your function. MK> - standard \setup keywords Have a look at mult-con.tex MK> - namespaces I don't know. I suppose this means automatic namespaces; prefixing internal variables with the module name would ensure uniqueness. MK> - usage of standard library macros I'm not sure I follow this. What exactly do you mean by this? >> 2. You can use any ConTeXt code, why should a module be limited? MK> For portability reasons, for example. If there were some kind MK> of standard library, then one would rather want to use that MK> instead of self-hacked things, because it will still work and MK> the sizes of the modules will be smaller. Of course, in MK> general, you can do whatever you want. This is merely a MK> question of maintenance and system integrity -- which LaTeX MK> lacks, for example. But there are lots of "tools" available from ConTeXt internals: just have a look at the syst-* modules. >> 3. Distribution mechanism isn't there, but I'm sure Hans is quite >> willing to put up links on his ConTeXt page to 3rd party >> stuff. Perhaps a good idea, what do you think Hans? MK> It certainly would be. However, it should also be on CTAN. And MK> Giuseppe's comments on things like TeXUtil hooks etc. are worth MK> considering, in my opinion. IIRC Hans already he wanted to set up an "other contributions" in the ConTeXt site (I'd have to search the old posts ...) And of course I do indeed think Giuseppe's comments are worth considering ;-) -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
