User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0)
            Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFUtaNEaKH3f88CF2TALs+ud9Y1MaaLLp4wjre7KAj+fUeu1-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <5032A298.9000004@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:48:24 +0100
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: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: l3doc: \tn vs. \cs
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <CAFUtaNEaKH3f88CF2TALs+ud9Y1MaaLLp4wjre7KAj+fUeu1-A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 20/08/2012 21:42, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> 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

The idea is exactly as you say. Long-term, we may want to enhance this
difference. Thus I would recommend using \tn for LaTeX2e and TeX
commands, and \cs for LaTeX3-related material.
-- 
Joseph Wright