Message-ID:  <5489.1404208110@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date:         Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:48:30 +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: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Case changing operations
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:29:02 +0100. 
              <53B2633E.7070100@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK> wrote:

> > A question raised elsewhere
> > (http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/16351207#16351207) is
> > of course whether "tl" is the right place for such functions at all.
> > It's arguable that they can be regarded a "text" functions, so perhaps a
> > "text manipulation" module would be a better location. That does not of
> > course preclude discussing the detail of how they should also work, but
> > may be worth consideration. Feedback here also welcome!
> 
> One argument here is that *at present* it's not clear what might be a
> 'better' location for case changing, while the need for the
> functionality is apparent and an implementation is doable 'now'. Thus we
> might argue that adding to tl with the possibility of a (well-defined)
> move to another module could occur at some stage in the future. This
> approach avoids adding new modules which turn out to be poorly defined.
> 
> There is a tension there of course with 'stability': we are aiming not
> to make changes without good reason, but at the same time are trying to
> have have mechanisms which do allow for some change where this makes sense.

the other concern that sticks in my mind, is frank suggesting
case-diddling isn't really stuff for the latex kernel.

does anyone know what context do?  is there scope for joint work on a
common module?

robin
standing on the edge and watching...