The 6 questions currently listed under the tag {scope} mostly refer to the -related scope environment. However, it could easily be confused with the scope of a group within which certain (re)definitions are considered local. I mention mostly since the most recent 2 referencing something akin to grouping.

Which is it? Which should it be? Should it be at all?

1 Answer 1


I suggest to rename the tag to or .

Besides that, I don't see a problem with the tag appearing in different contexts. It means a concept which could be used in TikZ and basic TeX. We can combine it with the matching tags and , if the question is about specific scoping. Very similar, for example, to using the tag which is commonly combined with , , , or whatever, though there's an arrow library in TikZ: no need for tags such as or .

Since up to 5 tags are possible, a tag doesn't need a unique meaning, so we don't need to change the tag (besides renaming).

I would keep the tag since it represents an important concept.

  • 4
    I wouldn't call it 'scopes', since it is a mass term that should be singular. Assuming it does have multiple uses, we need a reasonable tag wiki summary that covers both.
    – Alan Munn
    Feb 7, 2012 at 13:23
  • Could this be implemented?
    – Werner Mod
    May 21, 2012 at 15:30
  • I actually see there's a grouping already, so should I pose a new question regarding a tag synonym? Your thoughts
    – Werner Mod
    May 22, 2012 at 6:25
  • @Werner I changed scope to scoping. Yes, it's similar to grouping. I guess it's hard to decide which should be the master tag - while scoping is probably more generally used in CS, grouping is widely used in TeX. A meta question could clarify for us.
    – Stefan Kottwitz Mod
    May 22, 2012 at 8:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .