[pstricks] Re: pst-eucl (integrating Metapost into Pstricks :-)

[Maurice DIAMANTINI]

Denis Girou <Denis.Girou at idris.fr>:
> >>>>> "Maurice.Diamantini" <diam at ensta.fr> writes:
> 
>...
>  pst-geom is a great package from Dominique Rodriguez
>  to draw and connect geometric picture, and defining
>  some nodes from intersections of geometric pictures
>...


>   MD> But if it is, all the command names have to be cleaned
>   MD> to be more Pstricks complient.
> 
>   There is (unfortunately) no such thing. PSTricks has mostly an incoherent
> naming scheme (or to be more precise, it has only some "local" coherencies,
> ...
>   MD> About the commands names, there are two options:
>   MD> - either pst-geom is consider an addon to Pstricks,
>   MD>   so all commands should begin by \geo... to avoid conflicts
>   MD>   names.
> 
> GM> And, more important, the naming of pstricks command don't need to be
> GM> defined from an implementation point of view (pstricks complient) but
> GM> from a user point of view, and I don't know if it is possible or

I just wanted to say; "Pstricks complient" for the command name
at the user level; so I agree with both Denis and Georges.


>   The two sides are important. Conflict names is a real issue, 
> ...
> 
>   Take care too that PSTricks is always mixed with other packages. The \geo
> prefix will not give you a real guarantee that it will not clash with
> another package. This is mainly why I used myself names like \PstPoly...,
> \PstLens..., \PstCalendar... for external names and \PstPoly at ...,
> \PstLens at ..., \PstCalendar at ... for internal names. So, I would be personally
> in favor of something like \PstEucl[@]..., \PstEuclide[@]..., \PstGeom[@]...,
> \PstGeometry[@]..., etc., but this could seem heavy and painful in extensive
> usage and this is to each developer to make his own choices. I think that
> there are too few people who make developments to force them to adopt
> conventions that they can dislike... They have to make their own choices at
> their own risks. Nevertheless, your questions are important and this is a good
> contribution of beta-testers and interested people to force developers to
> deeply think to the consequences of their choices.
> 
>     MD>  (... SKIPED about renamming some commands...)
> 
>   As far as I can see, probably a lot of good questions / suggestions here,
> but it must be discussed with Dominique by the specialists of this field,
> as Georges Mariano start to do it, and this is to Dominique to choose the
> appropriate answers and the changes he would like to do.

Yes, that is what Dominique asked for.
I posted my answer on the pstricks list just because I thought
that the pst-geo package is more interessant than just for
drawing some geometry picture: it allow to define some
nodes in a more abstact fashon that pstrick did.


>     MD> general discution about integrating METAPOST INTO PSTRICKS.
> 
> I never believed that such general discussions can be very productive,
> ... 
> The spirit of the two packages is different and their usage is
> also really different, even if the functionalities will 
> be closest up to now.
> 
>     http://www.loria.fr/~roegel/TeX/momanual.pdf

!!!
Wouah!!
Node connections ability into metapost was THE
missing fonctonnality that stoped me to look at Metapost.
So I have to look at Metapost again !


-- 
Maurice.Diamantini at ensta.fr       -       ENSTA/LMA
École Nationale Supérieure  de  Techniques Avancées
 Laboratoire    de     Mathématiques    Appliquées 
     http://www.ensta.fr/~diam