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