X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1396" "Mon" "6" "July" "1998" "14:26:54" "+0100" "Javier Bezos" "jbezos@MX3.REDESTB.ES" nil "35" "Miscellany" "^Date:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA17720; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:29:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.F6D2FCB2@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:29:36 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 379910 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:29:32 +0200 Received: from tinet0.redestb.es (tinet0.redestb.es [194.179.106.117]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10224 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:29:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fclients0.redestb.es ([194.179.106.116]) by tinet0.redestb.es (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id AAA144 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:29:29 +0200 Received: from [195.122.197.67] by fclients0.redestb.es (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id AAA211 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:32:57 +0200 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <199807061229.OAA10224@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:26:54 +0100 From: Javier Bezos Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Miscellany Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2650 1. The \toks_put_left is defined \def_new:Npn \toks_put_left:Nn #1{\exp_after:NN\toks_put_left_aux:w \toks_use:N #1\q_stop #1} \def_long_new:Npn \toks_put_left_aux:w #1\q_stop #2#3{#2{#3#1}} but if the toks contains a quark stop the command fails. This sort of errors is very disconcerting (I found it very often in 2e) and I think should be avoided as possible. This could be defined \def_new:Npn \toks_put_left:Nn #1{\exp_after:NN\toks_put_left_aux:w \exp_after:NN{\toks_use:N #1}#1} \def_long_new:Npn \toks_put_left_aux:w #1#2#3{#2{#3#1}} which is only a token longer. 2. Every people is a world and it's impossible to devise a syntax which all people will be happy with. But even so, I think I must avoid just "importing" to TeX the syntax from our favourite programming language. TeX has its own internal logic and its own established syntax and this should be our starting point. Am I the only guy in the world whose favourite language is TeX? :-) 3. David said >although looking at your example above / looks too `hard' >a break to me, I can read \chk_var_or_const:N as one token but \chk/ >looks too split off. I think so, but I prefer it (or !) to _ which is too weak. Personally, I've always disliked the underscore because it looks as it was out of the text line, and I've preferred the uppercase convention of Modula2 or AppleTalk. Javier Regards