User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <LISTSERV%200809221214001575.01B1@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
            <27990a880809220403y7c6fcca7m4a3a965174a317de@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <48D77ECB.1080702@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:17:31 +0100
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: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Key management for LaTeX3 ("l3keys")
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <27990a880809220403y7c6fcca7m4a3a965174a317de@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
> 
> True. I can't really comment before I get into the details of
> template; they are very different approaches to a similar problem, I
> think.

My impression of the template system is that it is about designing
relatively fixed user macros on a flexible base.  So most of the keys
are set inside the package, and are not exposed to the user. On the
other hand, packages such as kvoptions, pgfkeys and l3keys are more
aimed at run-time options for the user.  Of course, I might be very
wrong in this: template is very clever and I may have missed things.

>> I'm imagining that a lot of the core names are reaching a point of stability
>> (recent discussions on l3messages notwithstanding).  Most things seem to
>> work quite well.
> 
> Lots of little changes, it's looking like. But nothing will be
> changing in the short term until we've got more of a "unified view" of
> everything that needs attention.

I will await with interest.

Joseph