Re: proposed convention for variation switching [wasRE:inheriting ...

[Idris Samawi Hamid <ishamid@colostate.edu>]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:55:19 +0100, Adam Lindsay <atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk> 
wrote:

> Idris Samawi Hamid said this at Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:36:02 -0600:
>
>> In any case whatever high-level framework we come up with should largely
>> be determined by your decision on the low/mid-level framework.
>
> See, I beg to differ.

I  agree with virtually everything u said, but _maybe_ u missed my 
point:-))

If Hans either implements

a) >2-char swutch support; or
b) \sizea(b)(c) etc,

it affects whether the high-level framework will need to use capital
2-char switches or have the option of using unrestricted lower-case 
switches
in whatever framework we agree on. Your point is on the framework being 
_mentioned_,
mine was on the language _used_ to mention the framework (perhaps I should 
have made
that clearer). The logic of the framework used should be largely 
independent,
but the language we use to mention it partly depends on the internal 
implementation.

I look forward to our final consensus!

Best
Idris
-- 
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523