Re[3]: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it>]

Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>>Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option
>>(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global
>>\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
>>
>>Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global
>>option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in
>>startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false
>>(force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
>>
>>Does this sound sensible?

HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so

Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to
skip the next \par or not ...

HH> concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more 
HH> control and suits today's way of coding

Awfully verbose. Wrist-heavy. Definitely not the way to go (btw
that's the reason why I *hate* XML). It *requires* a tuned editor
which will insert the code for you, to reach the same productivity
level.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta