User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428
            Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4FCE2B42.2090006@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <4FCFC6D7.20806@residenset.net>
            <4FCFD3C5.5050309@latex-project.org> <yfihaunsysm.fsf@triumf.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4FD077A4.3060407@latex-project.org>
Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:43:00 +0200
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: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: Separating out 'public' and 'internal' functions/variables in LaTeX3 modules
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <yfihaunsysm.fsf@triumf.ca>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Am 07.06.2012 03:20, schrieb Donald Arseneau:
>>>> The approach that we have taken for this is to use "@@" as the indicator
>>>> for internal code:
>
> Too bad "@@" is currently the indicator for a renamed TeX primitive.

yes they are, but we thought this nevertheless acceptable in an L3 
context. While expl3 runs on top of 2e there is a slight chance that you 
may want to refer to 2e commands in expl3 code and within the 2e 
commands to the handful of @@ frozen primitives. However, those either 
exist as expl3 names, eg \tex_par:D instead of \@@par, or we could 
provide them (or you have to not use the @@ convention in that part 
where you really need them).

at least that was our conclusion so far.

frank