User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620
            Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <51DBBD71.5050208@post.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <51DBC753.6050608@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:18:27 +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: l3keys feature request
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <51DBBD71.5050208@post.harvard.edu>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 09/07/2013 08:36, Jura Pintar wrote:
> Hi all (though I suppose this is mostly for Joseph),
> 
> Since there are updates of l3keys in progress, I was wondering what the
> final verdict was on this proposal for .meta:nn and
> \keys_subgroups_set:nnn... We'd been talking about it, but then I had
> things crop up and I don't think a conclusion was ever reached...
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jura

Not forgotten! .meta:nn will happen, possibly later today. Subgroups
still need a little thought: I see a few ways to tackle it, but first
want to deal with the other l3keys stuff.
-- 
Joseph Wright