Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with SMTP id p3JIMksC021848 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:22:47 +0200 Received: (qmail 16897 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2011 18:22:41 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2011 18:22:40 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx007) with SMTP; 19 Apr 2011 20:22:40 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3JIK3Ut009382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:03 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3JG7TOx004824; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:02 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1252291 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:02 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3JIK2UQ006963 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:02 +0200 Received: from mail-gx0-f177.google.com (mail-gx0-f177.google.com [209.85.161.177]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3JIJuSe009337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:01 +0200 Received: by gxk2 with SMTP id 2so3324141gxk.22 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146.182.8 with SMTP id e8mr3625823yaf.37.1303237195846; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.136.4 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT) References: <4DA5C4E2.8090005@morningstar2.co.uk> <58AFBC3A-4209-4BC0-BB3A-5B14D6B5EFD8@gmail.com> <4DA727A9.2050903@morningstar2.co.uk> <19880.45400.677093.956908@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:19:55 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Bruno Le Floch Subject: Re: The nature of popping from an empty sequence To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (eXpurgate); Detail=5D7Q89H36p4jIpucbGgVOgkF7Yh6quS0vW20zb3cKESTloBm81oEifQFZlh8Kwu0Xf1IN t+6SoksnjUpvRtiLq+kliGnkupjNpB3n9vWvqFcMjbEbU3q3pVUsB0g5A6fH7dxm6beJevC98AIL 58KsG80z+ow5IteNNwCFz9xhPwrqxSb/687N05HY8QXOlxLzszrNps+vDmlgVjLjSgRLg==V1; X-Resent-By: Forwarder X-Resent-For: rainer.schoepf@gmx.net X-Resent-To: rainer@rainer-schoepf.de Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6710 > I feel like it is not a huge restriction for practical applications, > but I may be wrong. I would say that keys should be stored as is, but > compared as strings. Thinking about it some more, I am wondering: is it more important - to distinguish keys which only differ by their catcode, or - to allow for any token as a key (e.g. Hef{}feron, which currently breaks the delimited argument approach) ? Regards, Bruno