References: <AFA791BD-820C-4762-AF99-680B5A3DFA07@gmail.com>           
            <4936E30A.5080209@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <87ljuxlybp.fsf@fawkes.hogwarts>           
            <039B3783CD514B509970052B8B93789E@JavierPC> 
            <27990a880812040533x3316ce17n3e5ae0777b9590c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Message-ID:  <031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC>
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:30:49 +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: Javier Bezos <listas@TEX-TIPOGRAFIA.COM>
Subject: Re: expl3 "token list" terminology
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Precedence: list
Status: R

Hi Will,

> 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'll try to find them. Right now I'm hearing Berg's Wozzeck, so
I'm not sure I'n in the mood ;-).

But one of my concerns was related to the number of specifications:

> 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.

Many, too many. This might lead to a combinatorial explosion.

Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying
the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but
I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled).

(Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the
near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX,
to be honest.)

Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.tex-tipografia.com