User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AFA791BD-820C-4762-AF99-680B5A3DFA07@gmail.com>                   
            <4936E30A.5080209@morningstar2.co.uk>                      
            <87ljuxlybp.fsf@fawkes.hogwarts>                      
            <039B3783CD514B509970052B8B93789E@JavierPC>            
            <27990a880812040533x3316ce17n3e5ae0777b9590c@mail.gmail.com>
            <031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <49383B0C.7000601@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:18:20 +0000
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: expl3 "token list" terminology
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Javier Bezos wrote:
>> 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).

My take, as an outsider looking in, is that although there are always
ways to improve things, the current expl3 is not too bad at all.  If
LaTeX3 is ever going to be more than a collection of interesting coding
ideas for TeX programmers, there does need to be a delivery point. That
will only happen if at some point expl3 is considered "finalised". (I
know I keep saying this, but I'm keen that it happens sooner rather than
later.)
-- 
Joseph Wright