User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <49A453A1.9040000@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <FB18C832-EA5E-42F0-9BF7-6853DB79B805@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1253
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <49A4F031.50405@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:16:01 +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: Re: Missing expl3 primitives
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <FB18C832-EA5E-42F0-9BF7-6853DB79B805@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Hmmmm, I actually think that we *should* provide access to these via a
> well-defined mechanism. That might be an xpackage job, or maybe they'd
> fit into \toks. But I'd hate to have to give them up (the reason they're
> banned in LaTeX is just that they get overwritten, right? At least in
> the case of \everypar).

Okay, I'd suggest all in \toks_ (remembering that we'll need to pick up
the primitives not the LaTeX2e versions for l3in2e). I guess we will
need to do the same as LaTeX2e for the initex version of expl3, and
remove direct access to the primitives in user space?

> There
> are also a bunch of pdfTeX primitives we're not using.

I was imagining that this (being one of those engine-dependent things)
was "for later".
--
Joseph Wright