Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:23:16 +1030 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 08/12/2008, at 6:05 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> that's the problem. It is something like \tlstream or \tstream
> (operating on
> an input stream of token (list)), but I'm not sure this makes it
> better (only
> longer)
Could this be generalised for other functions that deal with streams
of comma-lists, and so on? I guess not, since only token streams are
really that necessary to deal with "on the fly", so to speak.
What about just \tokens_ ? (Oh, but there's already the "token"
module. And "tokens" is a little too similar to "toks"? Maybe, maybe
not.)
> Another point to consider is that _tlp is the predominant storage
> bin used
> all over the place, so something snappy might be preferable over
> something
> longer (such as _tlist)
I don't see a problem with just _tl, then.
* * *
While we're discussing terminology, is there any overarching reason
that global and local variables have their scope as a prefix \g_ or
\l_ ? (My reason for asking being that I would slightly prefer
something like \module_name_l_tlp or something thereabouts, but I'm
not really fussed.)
Actually, I can already see why you want the scope first up -- it
makes it easier in l3chk to verify that you're operating on the
variable with the correctly-scoped function. It also enforces more
concretely that the scope of the variable is directly included in its
name.
Will
|
|
|