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 q7KKih9C018190 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:44:44 +0200 Received: (qmail 14621 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2012 20:44:38 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2012 20:44:37 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx005) with SMTP; 20 Aug 2012 22:44:37 +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 q7KKgX2U028979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:42:33 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q7KDvwTo016221; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:42:33 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 2231827 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:42:33 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q7KKgXkD028032 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:42:33 +0200 Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q7KKgSSW004295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:42:32 +0200 Received: by vcbfl13 with SMTP id fl13so7152558vcb.22 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.37.137 with SMTP id y9mr9651269vdj.100.1345495348395; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.219.102 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Whitelist: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id q7KKgXkD028033 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:42:28 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Joel C. Salomon" Subject: l3doc: \tn vs. \cs To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (BackTrace mail analyze); Detail=5D7Q89H36p4L00VTXC6D4q0N+AH0PUCnGL2vqOgpaBYL16oitsMrgDt/NQNpSCZFFjDOy 97xb7Zpf+wZnd5ZXNcvLDXR3Wg3wRjdQbwEMh8=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: 7127 The intent of \tn seems to be providing a \cs-like macro that puts its argument in a different index section for TeX/LaTeX2e commands (though this is not implemented, or at least not working, at the moment). How relevant is this, outside the l3 project itself? Is there any real reason for me to make this distinction in xpeek? —Joel