Will Robertson wrote:

> Quite the opposite! \scantokens can be really helpful.
> I might suggest a name like
>   \token_rescan:n
> or maybe
>   \tlist_rescan:n
> Opinions?

Based on things like \expandafter = \exp_after:NN, I'd imagine
\token_scan:n or \token_rescan:n make most sense. (I think \tlist...
incorrectly describes the function).

> The other two I'm not so sure where they should go. I'd *probably*
> recommend defining your own wrappers around the :D versions and then we
> can work out how to proceed from there.

I think that, if you want to use these you probably want access to the
raw (e)-TeX primitives.  However, the expl3 documentation make it pretty
clear that outside of the LaTeX3 team no-one should use anything ending
:D.  So there needs to be a non-D name for each one.  For \everyeof, I
guess this is (somewhat) related to I/O, so perhaps:

\l_ior_eof_toks

(based on \ior_eof:NTF, etc.).

\endlinechar is more tricky, clearly an _int, perhaps in tokens or chars?

\l_token_endline_int
\l_char_endline_int

seem possible.

I did think if there was a way to wrap both up along with \scantokens to
avoid the entire issue of naming the other parts.  But I don't think
that is possible.
-- 
Joseph Wright