Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
References: <4AA21B30.8030509@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <4AB09B99.10508@morningstar2.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <16EDE399-62C9-48E9-941D-9564F34EACDD@gmail.com>
Date:         Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:46:15 +0930
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: l3keys revision
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4AB09B99.10508@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 16/09/2009, at 5:32 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> I've made the changes outlined above. At present, I've retained .set:N
> and added
> - .dim_(g)set:N
> - .int_(g)set:N
> - .skip_(g)set:N
> - .tl_(g)set:N
> - .tl_(g)set_x:N
>
> Is everyone OK with retaining .set:N in this way, or would others  
> prefer
> only to have the explicit setting properties? I'd like to update the
> CTAN version soon to reflect these changes (which I hope are the final
> ones for l3keys), and so want to get this right.

If you're unsure about .set:N, perhaps it's better to drop it for now.  
I mean, *I* like it, but others have had mixed reactions. (You've been  
looking at l3keys recently, Manuel? Any thoughts?)

Not sure if this helps you to decide, though :)

Will