On 2021-Mar-17, Daniel Verite wrote:
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > For consistency with the existing \if … \endif, ISTM that it could have
> > been named \batch … \endbatch or \pipeline … \endpipeline?
>
> "start" mirrors "end". To me, the analogy with \if-\endif is not
> obvious.
> Grammatically \if is meant to introduce the expression after it,
> whereas \startpipeline takes no argument.
> Functionally \startpipeline can be thought as "open the valve"
> and \endpipeline "close the valve". They're "call-to-action" kinds of
> commands, and in that sense quite different from the \if-\endif pair.
I forgot to reply to this, but I did consider the naming of these
commands before commit, and I tend to side with Daniel here. I think
it's not totally unreasonable to have in the future another command
\syncpipeline which sends does PQpipelineSync(); if the commands are
\pipeline and \endpipeline then a \syncpipeline in the middle makes less
sense than if they are \startpipeline and \endpipeline. I grant this is
quite subjective, though.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
