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 q7KMAnXX013372 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:10:50 +0200 Received: (qmail 11408 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2012 22:10:44 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2012 22:10:44 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx075) with SMTP; 21 Aug 2012 00:10:44 +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 q7KM8MFF014734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:08:23 +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 q7KDvwc8016221; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:08:23 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 2232122 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:08:23 +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 q7KM8MLe031512 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:08:22 +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 q7KM8I8f021836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:08:21 +0200 Received: by vcbfl13 with SMTP id fl13so7239397vcb.22 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.239.209 with SMTP id kx17mr11590318vcb.41.1345500498230; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.219.102 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT) References: <5032A298.9000004@morningstar2.co.uk> 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 q7KM8NLe031513 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:08:18 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Joel C. Salomon" Subject: Re: l3doc: \tn vs. \cs To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <5032A298.9000004@morningstar2.co.uk> 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: 7131 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Wright wrote: > 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? > > 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. I'm afraid I'm still seeing an ambiguity. For xpeek, I've put almost all command-words not defined in the package itself into \DoNotIndex. And actually, the only LaTeX2e commands I talk about are \textit, \nocorrlist, \xspace, and \xspaceaddexceptions; if (for example) some formatting difference were to be applied to LaTeX2e commands, these would be good candidates for such. On the other hand, I'm using qstest's \Expect (LaTeX2e), as well as a wrapper (\ExpectIdenticalWidths) I'm defining with xparse's \NewDocumentCommand. Does it make sense for me to index and/or display these at all differently? On the gripping hand, I imagine that on the wish list for \cs is some intelligence to index variables and namespaced functions separately. (E.g., \l_tmpa_bool nowhere near \lua_now:n, but \__int_eval:w somewhere close to \int_eval:n.) By this token, user commands might well go elsewhere entirely. If \cs="command sequence" and \tn="TeX name", perhaps \uc="user command"? —Joel