User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <49A453A1.9040000@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:08:01 +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: Missing expl3 primitives
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Precedence: list
Status: R

Hello everyone,

A while ago, I raised the issue of three (e-)TeX primitives which are
missing from expl3 and which I think do need to be accessible to
programmers: \endlinechar, \scantokens, and \everyeof.  There are
several other primitives that are deliberately not given general (non-D)
names in expl3, but there are outstanding questions:

1) Are there any other missing primitives?  The other \every...
primitives should (I think) not be used outside of the kernel, and so
don't need to be worried about.  Am I right about this, and is there
anything else missing.

2) How should the missing three (plus any others) be named.  The current
idea is, I think, something like:

\endlinechar	\l_char_endline_int
\evereof	\l_ior_eof_toks
\scantokens	\tlist_rescan:n

Is this logical: are there any other suggestions?

3) Do the three primitives need to be accessible?  I think it's hard to
argue against \scantokens, at least.
-- 
Joseph Wright