On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 21:42, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>> The intent of \tn seems to be providing a \cs-like macro that puts its
>> argument in a different index section for TeX/LaTeX2e commands (though
>> this is not implemented, or at least not working, at the moment).
>>
>> How relevant is this, outside the l3 project itself?  Is there any
>> real reason for me to make this distinction in xpeek?
>
> The idea is exactly as you say. Long-term, we may want to enhance this
> difference. Thus I would recommend using \tn for LaTeX2e and TeX
> commands, and \cs for LaTeX3-related material.

I'm afraid I'm still seeing an ambiguity.

For xpeek, I've put almost all command-words not defined in the
package itself into \DoNotIndex. And actually, the only LaTeX2e
commands I talk about are \textit, \nocorrlist, \xspace, and
\xspaceaddexceptions; if (for example) some formatting difference were
to be applied to LaTeX2e commands, these would be good candidates for
such.

On the other hand, I'm using qstest's \Expect (LaTeX2e), as well as a
wrapper (\ExpectIdenticalWidths) I'm defining with xparse's
\NewDocumentCommand.  Does it make sense for me to index and/or
display these at all differently?

On the gripping hand, I imagine that on the wish list for \cs is some
intelligence to index variables and namespaced functions separately.
(E.g., \l_tmpa_bool nowhere near \lua_now:n, but \__int_eval:w
somewhere close to \int_eval:n.)  By this token, user commands might
well go elsewhere entirely.  If \cs="command sequence" and \tn="TeX
name", perhaps \uc="user command"?

—Joel