On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> > Hello Tom, > > I'm not entirely convinced that function-per-command is an improvement >> though. [...] >> > > I don't have a definite opinion on that core question yet, since I've not >> read this version of the patch. Anybody else want to give an opinion? >> > > My 0.02€: > > I've already provided my view... > > Personnally I like good functions. Maybe a per-command-family set of > functions could improve the code readability, but (1) I'm not sure this is > achieved by this patch (eg the if-related state management is now > dispatched in 4 functions) and (2) I'm not sure that this approach helps > much with respect to trying to factor out backslash-command-related > active-or-not argument management. > > However I have not looked at the patch in detail. I'm planing to do so > later this week. I offered to split the patch into two steps (1. break each "family" into it's own function and 2. Do what's needed for \if-\endif) but got no response. I can still do that if people think it's worthwhile.
