Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:46:34 +1030 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 08/12/2008, at 2:04 AM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>
> well you got me thinking on that level, because tlp could be named
> tlist to
> fit with plist clist.
>
> the problem seems to be more in the later addition of the \tlist
> functions
> that in contrast to anything else do not operate on some storage
> bins but on
> tokens in the input stream.
Hmmm, I agree tlist would be nice and consistent; after all we don't
have "clist pointers" and "plist pointers". But then what would we
rename what are currently tlists?
>> So in the documentation when we write
>> \toks_set:Nn <toks> {<token list>}
>> cf.
>> \tlp_set:Nn <tlp> {<token list>}
>
> which is perfectly correct as far as I can see. Am I dense?
> ... yes, ok I am, there is one difference in the handling of #.
> Anything else?
Not as far as I'm aware...
>> I'm still thinking there's nothing we can do but refer to the
>> contents
>> of both as "token lists" and just mention the differences at the
>> beginning of l3tlp and l3toks.
>
> probably; a quick read through the TeX book seems to indicate that
> Don also
> didn't try to work this out in his BNF in both cases it is <balanced
> text>
Okay, that settles it. "token list" is fine for both (which I prefer
to "balanced text", for what it's worth).
Will
|
|
|