Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1)
Message-ID:  <48461707-A2C4-47C3-95C3-0D938ED86A90@gmail.com>
Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:50:39 +0930
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: syntax for _push, _put_left
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Precedence: list
Status: R

Hello,

I've moved this discussion from c.t.t. because more people might  
comment here.


On 2008-09-07 22:53:13 +0930, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk 
 > said:

> I'd not thought of that: I was looking for something specifically
> mentioning macros.  As you say, this works fine.  Perhaps a clue in
> source3.pdf would be helpful:
>
> "TeXhackers note: \cs{tlp_gput_right:Nn} can be used in a similar  
> manner
> to the \LaTeXe\ macro \cs{g@addto@macro}."

I've definitely thought about something like this before. I think  
you're right. Even if they're footnotes (and I think the TeXhacker  
sections should be, too) they would really help the transition.

***

As that section mentions (I think; it might actually be in the seq/ 
clist area) however, the naming system isn't ideal right now with both  
_put_left and _push doing the same thing. I prefer the former for  
consistency and the latter for, well, simplicity, so I'm not sure  
which should stay...

Maybe _append and _prepend would be better names in general?

W