In one of the last posts I told you about my bohr package. In a comment the question came up how to draw Bohr models of atoms in an excited state. This made me thinking: should I improve the package adding support for this? And how should I do this regarding the syntax? As it is now the syntax does not easily allow to be extended for it. I can think of several approaches:
- Introduce a new command,
\exbohrsay, that would be used for excited states. This would give me full freedom of choice for a suited syntax.
- Introduce a starred variant
\bohr*for excited states. While I like this version thinking that excited states in chemistry are also marked with a star this would either limit my choices for a syntax or violate what is LaTeX practice: if I use a completely different syntax for the starred variant the
\bohrcommand wouldn’t follow most other LaTeX commands that have a starred variant.
\bohrcompletely new with a new syntax allowing both excited and non-excited states, switch package version from 0 to 1 and add a package option “compatibility” (or something) that allows for older documents still to be compiled correctly.
What do you think? Would such an improvement be useful? Which way regarding the syntax would you choose? Do you have another proposal for a syntax? Can you think of further features/improvements?