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 p3JKMuTa032081 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:22:57 +0200 Received: (qmail 4583 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2011 20:22:51 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2011 20:22:51 -0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.100.212] by mx0.gmx.net (mx067) with SMTP; 19 Apr 2011 22:22:51 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3JKKJGo026352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:20:20 +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 p3JIr6b7004824; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:20:19 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1254745 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:20:19 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3JKKJaC019870 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:20:19 +0200 Received: from mail-gy0-f177.google.com (mail-gy0-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3JKKDxY026332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:20:18 +0200 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so25313gyh.22 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:20:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.26.34 with SMTP id b22mr5467024yha.201.1303244412789; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.136.4 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:20:12 -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> <4DADDE63.2010304@morningstar2.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:20:12 -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: <4DADDE63.2010304@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (eXpurgate); Detail=5D7Q89H36p6myV/soHys3YjkvsXydry2/Y05ywEd0D1Skf84QqiUQrv+e8X2H22s6FBoz /+PkzNVbYgje9+HTvy/0rMdyQ6D6z7IXeOVNZQ6ymdOkag3UcanLOt6+AHMvkQu9ui4RVj3g0JHm u55OlxxnuiWxgTQhvpxJT+Y9LiaKb5UaMyS8JSTbWoZHV93ppdzhklWzOxTY15VHd6jFA==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: 6712 >> 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) ? > > Hello Bruno, > > I'd say that at the very least we should _store_ tokens and not > _strings_. So category codes should be preserved when putting stuff in > or getting them out. After all, sequences might be used for all sorts of > things, and the tokenization may be important. Of course, the must be a token list, but the could be more restricted? I'm guessing that the use of a prop may be \q_prop name \q_prop {S\o m\c{e}$t_{hi}n^g$} \q_prop country \q_prop {Br\'azil} \q_prop I.D. number \q_prop {2CUOHE@#@} \q_prop ef{}ficiency \q_prop {12} (etc.) Here may be anything, but are rather well behaved. The key (sic) property of in my understanding is whether they differ or not, and detokenizing will not cause too many collisions? Regards, Bruno