Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:03:43 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB523c4V025953 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:03:39 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mB520DhB010219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:00:13 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB4N1Ups029766; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:00:00 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 167242 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:00:00 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB51xxN7009221 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:59:59 +0100 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.247]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mB51xscv010001 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:59:58 +0100 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so4262277rvf.10 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.176.16 with SMTP id d16mr7271007rvp.120.1228442394200; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?129.127.15.244? ([129.127.15.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b8sm17065566rvf.3.2008.12.04.17.59.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:59:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) X-Priority: 3 References: <4936E30A.5080209@morningstar2.co.uk> <87ljuxlybp.fsf@fawkes.hogwarts> <039B3783CD514B509970052B8B93789E@JavierPC> <27990a880812040533x3316ce17n3e5ae0777b9590c@mail.gmail.com> <031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:29:50 +1030 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Will Robertson Subject: Re: expl3 "token list" terminology To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <031B4E01889C40D384D5F3F50B32C65A@JavierPC> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2008 02:03:43.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[B333D8B0:01C9567D] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5501 On 05/12/2008, at 1:00 AM, Javier Bezos wrote: > 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). : is just a letter character; it's just convention that puts it only once in the function names. Other package writers may well do odd things in their naming if they wish :) Does \module:name:suffix have any advantage over \module_name:suffix ? There are some inconsistencies at the moment with initial prefixes -- but we're trying to fix this up ASAP to minimise the number of (or, at least, better organise the) "module prefixes" we're using. > (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.) That's understandable. I'm very interested in seeing what happens there. Will