Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
References: <AFA791BD-820C-4762-AF99-680B5A3DFA07@gmail.com>
            <4936E30A.5080209@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <87ljuxlybp.fsf@fawkes.hogwarts>
            <49370743.7050004@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <18745.37877.845526.230207@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
            <A9325DBA-A80E-4A6B-BE2B-B9FA4F005902@gmail.com>
            <18747.60665.106015.681211@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Message-ID:  <944107A6-E45B-4F33-8F7B-AF98DC95AB54@gmail.com>
Date:         Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:46:34 +1030
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: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: expl3 "token list" terminology
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <18747.60665.106015.681211@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 08/12/2008, at 2:04 AM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>
> well you got me thinking on that level, because tlp could be named  
> tlist to
> fit with plist clist.
>
> the problem seems to be more in the later addition of the \tlist  
> functions
> that in contrast to anything else do not operate on some storage  
> bins but on
> tokens in the input stream.

Hmmm, I agree tlist would be nice and consistent; after all we don't  
have "clist pointers" and "plist pointers". But then what would we  
rename what are currently tlists?

>> So in the documentation when we write
>>   \toks_set:Nn <toks> {<token list>}
>> cf.
>>   \tlp_set:Nn <tlp> {<token list>}
>
> which is perfectly  correct as far as I can see. Am I dense?
> ... yes, ok I am, there is one difference in the handling of #.  
> Anything else?

Not as far as I'm aware...

>> I'm still thinking there's nothing we can do but refer to the  
>> contents
>> of both as "token lists" and just mention the differences at the
>> beginning of l3tlp and l3toks.
>
> probably; a quick read through the TeX book seems to indicate that  
> Don also
> didn't try to work this out in his BNF in both cases it is <balanced  
> text>

Okay, that settles it. "token list" is fine for both (which I prefer  
to "balanced text", for what it's worth).

Will