(Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity.)
On 18/08/2009, at 0:38, "J.Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Manuel wrote:
>
>>> Thank you. It's not the only nice thing we can do. Here are some
>>> more:
>>>
>>> * Allow digits in control sequence names
>>> * Allow period in control sequence names
>>
>> I think the naming scheme (at the programming level at leat) has been
>> discussed
>> previously and is now considered stable. Let's not re-discuss again
>> and
>> again
>> points were decisions are already made. (And btw, I personnaly
>> think the
>> namign
>> scheme in expl3 is good.)
>
> My suggestion is compatible with the LaTeX3 naming scheme. Did you
> think it was not?
Period (I think) and digits (definitely) must all be catcode other to
work inside numexpr and so on. I wish it were otherwise, but I don't
think it's nice to have to use scantokens to sanitise input for all
numeric work.
>
>>> * Allow '~' to produce a space /in all circumstances/
>>>
>> What would be the purpose?
>
> So that
> \this ~ \that
> has as space between \this and \that, for example. Or to get
> several spaces in a row.
~ is currently catcode space in expl3 since space itself is catcode
ignore. So I don't think this suggestion is feasible either.
Will