algol:0.1.0

[TimotheAlbouy]

I am submitting

• a new package
• an update for a package

Description: Algol is a pseudocode typesetting package featuring simple notations (code blocks are typeset as lists/enums) while staying very flexible and light (~130 lines of code). It provides line referencing and finished/unfinished code block typesetting, thus reproducing the look-and-feel of the algorithm2e LaTeX package better than other Typst-based solutions. Algol is unopinionated, therefore leaving easily-implementable features (such as pseudocode keywords/comments and embedding in figures) to the user's side.

I have read and followed the submission guidelines and, in particular, I

• selected a name that isn't the most obvious or canonical name for what the package does
  • Explanation: Algol evokes "algorithm" but remains non-canonical. It makes a reference to the Algol star of the Perseus constellation and the ALGOL family of programming languages from the 50's-60's.
• added a typst.toml file with all required keys
• added a README.md with documentation for my package
• have chosen a license and added a LICENSE file or linked one in my README.md
• tested my package locally on my system and it worked
• excluded PDFs or README images, if any, but not the LICENSE

[saecki]

Thanks for this package!

[saecki]

Explanation: Algol evokes "algorithm" but remains non-canonical. It makes a reference to the Algol star of the Perseus constellation and the ALGOL family of programming languages from the 50's-60's.

If this was only about the star, I think the name would be fine. But with regards to the programming language, which my mind immediately jumped towards, I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Imagine a package called pascal, basic, or rust.

[TimotheAlbouy]

That's a fair point, the name does look like a language name first, and I won't claim the star was the only reason.

My case for keeping it: the ALGOL 60 report describes the language at three levels, and one of them is the publication language, which was meant for printing human-readable algorithms with rich formatting (subscripts, exponents, math mode...). For a few decades, ALGOL was how algorithms were published, which is more or less what pseudocode does today. So the name comes from the tradition this package belongs to; it comes from the part of ALGOL that was about typesetting algorithms for human readers, not the syntax/compiler of ALGOL 60/68.

Happy to reconsider if you still think it's a problem.

[TimotheAlbouy]

Would algol-code be fine as a replacement? I mentioned the family of programming languages simply as a nod to the project, not as an attempt to hijack its brand. Moreover, I chose this name mostly because I like astronomy, and the story behind the star's name. AFAIU, the main issue is that algol is canonical in the sense that it's exactly the name of the family of programming languages. Therefore, algol-code would remove this namespace collision, in case folks from the project (if they are still alive) ever want to publish a Typst package named algol.