Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:25:57 +0100
Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB5NPrrb006242
	for <rainer.schoepf@PROTEOSYS.COM>; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:25:54 +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 mB5NMqoU024605
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:22:52 +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 mB5N1ATp021973;
	Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:22:52 +0100
Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with
          spool id 166367 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 6 Dec
          2008 00:22:45 +0100
Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de
          [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with
          ESMTP id mB5NDll3024135 for <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>;
          Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:13:47 +0100
Received: from anchor-post-3.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-3.mail.demon.net
          [195.173.77.134]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with
          ESMTP id mB5NDWSV021470 for <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>;
          Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:13:35 +0100
Received: from morningstar2.demon.co.uk ([80.176.134.7] helo=[192.168.0.4]) by
          anchor-post-3.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) id
          1L8jrY-0001nd-p9 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 05 Dec
          2008 23:13:32 +0000
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <LISTSERV%200811270913326844.0163@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
            <18745.42929.572931.522217@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4939B59D.2070301@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:13:33 +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: Recent talk on LaTeX3
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <18745.42929.572931.522217@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>,
           <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE?body=INFO%20LATEX-L>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Owner: <mailto:LATEX-L-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>
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 23:25:57.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[D397AFB0:01C95730]
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 5513

Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> I like the article (and as I said once it is ready I would like to like or
> have a copy for the LaTeX web site).
> 
> a couple of comments (in random oder)
> 
>  - I already made a remark concerning tlp not being similar to strings (tokens
>    aren't chars so token lists aren't strings) I think this is dangerous to
>    imply

Okay, I'll go back over this.  I guess that the point I'm thinking about
is that if you have experience in other languages, you expect there to
be a string variable type.  As TeX deals with text, not having strings
is very odd.  I'm trying (and obviously failing) to point out that what
you might do with a string in say BASIC you can do with a tlp in LaTeX3.

>  - early on you imply that in section 3.1 + 3.2 you explain the <arg-spec> but
>    I don't think that you really do it justice.
> 
>      *  \def is rather a weird TeX thing so \def:Npn isn't a good example
>         really;  perhaps using something with only standard args would be easier
>         to grasps at this point.
> 
> 
>     *  more importantly, you don't really mention the big strength of the
>        arg-spec concept:
> 
>           - once you have a baase function, e.g. \foo:nnn
>             then any kind of arg manipulation comes for free, eg
> 
>                \foo:cnn \foo:noo \foo:nox  what have you
> 
>             and if it is not predefined then there is a single unique way to
>             obain the missing variant
> 
>             rather than explaining that you go for \exp_args:... which are
>             meant to be used only to define the variant, ie not to be used
>             withing the code really.
> 
>       perhaps reshaping or extending that slightly would be an improvement

I was trying to work from what TeX provides (and therefore people know),
and both \def and \expandafter seemed to fit the bill.  BTW, I'd missed
the point that "\exp_args: ...  not to be used within the code": I'll
have to revisit some of my ideas.

I will have a look at the draft over the weekend and post a note here
once it is revised.  I'm very happy to have constructive suggestions.
-- 
Joseph Wright