On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Joseph Wright
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here is the point, really.  I can write what I like using expl3, but I
> can't release it as production.  So everything has to be done twice,
> once in standard TeX/LaTeX and once in expl3 (if I want to do the later
> at all).  That will change when the current l3 packages reach a point
> where I can rely on them not changing, where I can then write new stuff
> in l3 + support as needed from LaTeX2e packages, with the aim of
> minimising the later.

Sounds like a good read for people like us to start using expl3 and
help to stabilise it as soon as possible! Changes in expl3 are only a
problem when we stop maintaining existing code. And I hope that after
a (relatively) short time of practical use in "our" packages, the
basic interface will be good enough to freeze.

After all, we *want* to start using this stuff, right?! So it's in our
interests to get it in a state whereby that is possible.

(This reminds me of an interesting versioning idea: is it worth adding
hooks in the package loading code so that when a user requests a
specific version, the package is able to fall back on its old
behaviour? Like an implicit "compatibility" switch. Something like
  \IfOldPackageDate{2006/06/08}{...implement old functionality...}
)

> (By the way, I can't see that any LaTeX3 kernel can possibly support 2e
> packages.  Surely the entire thing will be structured so differently
> that writing the necessary hooks will be too much work.)

Agreed.

Will