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>
            <4FD0630C.6040501@residenset.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4FD07A72.7060000@latex-project.org>
Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:54:58 +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:  <4FD0630C.6040501@residenset.net>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Am 07.06.2012 10:15, schrieb Lars Hellström:
>>> Other approaches I would find preferable to %<@@=foo> is to use
>>> %%% lines (as an homage to mft) or explicit commands in the .ins
>>> file; after all, most source files don't contain code for
>>> multiple l3-modules.
>>
>> To be honest I don't like that much but perhaps this is something
>> one just needs getting used to.
>
> Note that these are "/other/ possibilities I would actually find
> preferable to assignment-guards"; you snipped my preferred realm of
> solution without comment.

sorry that was after midnight. You mean

> FWIW, an alternative way of embedding extra directives into a .dtx
> file that I have in production is to designate a specific docstrip
> module as containing code that is directives for the stripper. If one
> picks the very crude syntax for "directives" that each codeline in
> the @@ module sets the current @@ replacement then the above could
> become
>
> %<@@>foo
> %<*pkg>
> \@@_function:nn   % Will be converted to \__foo_function:nn
> \l_@@_variable_tl % Will be converted to \l__foo_variable_tl
> %</pkg>

Maybe I still don't quite understand directives but

%<@@>foo

doesn't really look much different to

%<@@=foo>

except that I think it is less readable but mileage may vary

Perhaps you can expand on that once more?

thanks
frank