Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > If "/" does not prove to be suitable, then it can easily be changed to
> > something else at some later point.
>
>with absolutely the same argument i vote for keeping it the way as it
>is.
Why bother about voting if you are the man? :-)
>..the specification says \<module>_<funcname>:<argspec> and it is as
>trivial as changing / to something else to replace \\[a-zA-Z]+_ by
>\\[a-zA-Z]+/ and i'm happy to do this if there is a need for this,
Clearly not as it excludes those who want to experiment with submodules...
> eg
>if you prove me wrong and your module/submodule mechanism can be made
>workable in practise or if after experiencing with the code i got
>enough people (that used it) saying that they feel \foo/bar:nn is
>better readable to them than \foo_bar:nn