Closed jperon closed 6 years ago
This totally makes sense. I have just one additional wish: while you're at that could you implement some sore ot (fake) type check in that hypothetical \lysetoption{}
command? Since we still have strings as input it would be good to check if a given option matches the expected type and/or set of expected values.
I did start some code clean-up on the https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/tree/program-flow branch which is intended as a preparation of your options work. It should be mergeable before you start, but if I shouldn't have opened a pull request by the time you want to work on it please check what's going on on that branch.
Till now :
hash_output_filename
;lyluatex.sty
, and when definingly
andlily
.This should be refactored :
\lysetoption{OPTION}
, that would change each parameter ;hash_output_filename
, and include them in the hash instead of defining very long filenames (that may only get longer while adding options) ;ly
andlily
's options.That way, every option could be defined :
While it wouldn't necessarily mean something for every option, nothing prohibits to make it possible. Perhaps we would be amazed by users' ingeniousness…
I'll work on this as from wednesday.