MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <AFA791BD-820C-4762-AF99-680B5A3DFA07@gmail.com>
            <4936E30A.5080209@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <87ljuxlybp.fsf@fawkes.hogwarts>
            <039B3783CD514B509970052B8B93789E@JavierPC>
Message-ID:  <27990a880812040533x3316ce17n3e5ae0777b9590c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:03:04 +1030
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: Re: expl3 "token list" terminology
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <039B3783CD514B509970052B8B93789E@JavierPC>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Javier Bezos <listas@tex-tipografia.com> wrote:
>> LaTeX3 is already far away from TeX. Maybe too far. Don't push
>> it even farther away by reinventing terms and definitions.
>
> Agreed, definitely. I think it's time to simplify the syntax,
> getting the essential.

Hi Javier,

I know you've written about this before, but I think I've lost the
post (or rather, never received it and read it through the archives at
some stage) where you go into detail about your thoughts on this
matter.

I think if we are going to change the fundamental syntax of the expl3
package, the sooner the better, and over the next few months is
probably the time to discuss things again. I think the recent letters
by Morten, Joseph and I on the different "argument specifications"
showed that there are many different cases to consider, and also lots
of scope for different solutions.

Do you have a copy of your ideas or would you be willing to repeat
them again here?

Thanks,
Will