MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <49A453A1.9040000@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <FB18C832-EA5E-42F0-9BF7-6853DB79B805@gmail.com>
            <49A4F031.50405@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <49A4FE4F.6040304@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <27990a880902250600v21963220v319195a504107625@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:30:19 +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: Missing expl3 primitives
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <49A4FE4F.6040304@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Joseph Wright
<joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
> Over all, I think I prefer the first option, as these do all go
> together. (If we go for _every_, do we have a very short module
> "l3every" for this? If not, where do these things go?)

I think I agree with you here. And I think it would be fine to define
these in l3toks for lack of any better location (they're not necessary
"early", so it doesn't really matter, I suppose; since they're token
registers then putting them in toks makes sense).

> There is also the question of whether to provide a wrapper for
> assignment to these, [...]
> I'd probably argue that this is unnecessary.  The \every... toks are all
> quite low-level, and I think that it's perfectly logical if they are
> given _toks names that they are then treated like any other toks.

Again, I agree; packages like galley2 (in the case of \everypar) might
well provide higher level interfaces and we don't need to do that on
the lower level of expl3.

Will