On 23/08/2011, at 6:02 PM, Ulrike Fischer wrote:

> Am Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:14:15 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright:
> 
>> I have added the scheme broadly as outlined above to l3keys. Feedback
>> would be welcome. For example, does 'set_known' convey the appropriate
>> idea? 
> 
> I don't have enough practice with l3keys to decide this - just
> starting. But from the language I would expect a \keys_set_known to
> give an error if it encounters something unknown. Also a command to
> set keys can set only known keys, so it sound like a pleonasm. 
> 
> Perhaps \keys_set_store or \keys_set_keep would be better?

I must confess I prefer \keys_set_known, which I associate with "set keys *which are known* of #2".

I guess this is a bad time to mention that I just realised that \keys_set:nn is a weird name in the first place, since it's actually more general that assigning values to variables. (In fact, I often write \keys_set when I mean to write \keys_define.) But I think it's okay and I can certainly live with it; I'm not proposing a change of name to \keys_process:nn !

-- Will