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>           
            <49383B0C.7000601@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <6CA3DEBB6DE04310AF22DBADD1AA1EB9@JavierPC>
            <18745.39676.338482.861341@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4939B441.3040200@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:07:45 +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:  <18745.39676.338482.861341@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Frank Mittelbach wrote:

> I agree with you that arg spec is getting (and got) in the wrong direction,
> too many letters too much encoded in convention. This needs one more serious
> round of discussions and thought. However, beside "perfect" conventions one
> also always has to think about the look and feel of the resulting code, e.g.,
> even if it is more logical perhaps to use "t" and "f" for true and false
> branches "T" and "F" work better because they stand out and that is what you
> need for these arguments.

From writing the few things I've tried in expl3, I'd say the the
arg-specs I've use most (by some way) are N, T, F, n and c, plus p in
\def:Npn (although nowhere else).  Probably o and x pop up in similar
numbers, with everything else very rarely: I've used f a couple of
times, d perhaps once or twice and w for things like \tlp_map_break:w
(where I'm not sure it helps).  (I've also been forced to use a couple
of :D primitives, but I'm sure that this will be sorted.)

So one could possibly rationalise to:

N, T, F, n, c (all unchanged), x (perhaps also covering current X), w
(covering current w and p) and e (or s = special) (other expansion, read
docs, to cover d, f, current E, ...), plus of course D.

That is nine letters, with e and w covering a multitude of things, i.e.
these are both "special" and the user needs to read the rules for using
these functions.  I'd say that ten or fewer letters would be a worthy aim.
-- 
Joseph Wright