macrospackage-writingparagraphstex-core
Just yesterday I had to patch a package file (changing the description to indicate that the file had changed) to replace some \par to \endgraf because the code had bad interactions with non-\long macros.
When writing a package, are there cases where it is better to use \par than \endgraf?
I'd still use the parskip package and try to sort out problems regarding lists and individual indented paragraphs, but you may change the length \medskipamount which is used by \medskip. (In the following example, I'm changing \medskipamount in the document body for demonstration purposes -- you should modify it in the preamble.)
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
Some text.
\medskip
Some text.
\setlength{\medskipamount}{12pt plus 4pt minus 4pt}% Default: 6pt plus 2pt minus 2pt
\medskip
Some text.
\end{document}
As Ulrike Fischer suggested, you may also define a dedicated command to be used between paragraphs:
\documentclass{article}
\newcommand*{\myparskip}{\vspace{\medskipamount}}
\begin{document}
Some text.
\myparskip
Some text.
\renewcommand*{\myparskip}{\vspace{\bigskipamount}}
\myparskip
Some text.
\end{document}
Output for both variants:
Personally, I prefer a suffix
\getthemacro@cx \andaddto@cx \checkthereadabilty@cx
and compare
\cx@getthemacro@cx \cx@andaddto \cx@checkthereadabilty
for the user maybe GetTheMacro if you follow LaTeX2e conventions, which to be honest I am not very fond of...
Personal preference I guess, and is doomed to disappear if and when I move onto LaTeX3, which has a standard convention.
Best Answer
It depends whether the commands you are defining are ever going to be executed at a place where
\pardoesn't mean\endgraf. For examplelatex.ltxhasso if you might want to be evaluated in the scope of those definitions you have to decide whether you want the current definition of
\paror of\endgraf.