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