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>
            <944107A6-E45B-4F33-8F7B-AF98DC95AB54@gmail.com>
            <18748.52807.627728.138832@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Message-ID:  <FF2C79FE-8C9A-43BC-98EA-794785F39861@gmail.com>
Date:         Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:23:16 +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:  <18748.52807.627728.138832@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 08/12/2008, at 6:05 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

> that's the problem. It is something like \tlstream or \tstream  
> (operating on
> an input stream of token (list)), but I'm not sure this makes it  
> better (only
> longer)

Could this be generalised for other functions that deal with streams  
of comma-lists, and so on? I guess not, since only token streams are  
really that necessary to deal with "on the fly", so to speak.

What about just \tokens_ ? (Oh, but there's already the "token"  
module. And "tokens" is a little too similar to "toks"? Maybe, maybe  
not.)

> Another point to consider is that _tlp is the predominant storage  
> bin used
> all over the place, so something snappy might be preferable over  
> something
> longer (such as _tlist)

I don't see a problem with just _tl, then.

* * *

While we're discussing terminology, is there any overarching reason  
that global and local variables have their scope as a prefix \g_ or  
\l_ ? (My reason for asking being that I would slightly prefer  
something like \module_name_l_tlp or something thereabouts, but I'm  
not really fussed.)

Actually, I can already see why you want the scope first up -- it  
makes it easier in l3chk to verify that you're operating on the  
variable with the correctly-scoped function. It also enforces more  
concretely that the scope of the variable is directly included in its  
name.

Will