1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:02:34 +1030
On 08/12/2008, at 6:05 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Will Robertson writes:
>> 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
>>> 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?
> 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
> Another point to consider is that _tlp is the predominant storage
> bin used
> all over the place, so something snappy might be preferable over
> longer (such as _tlist)
An immodest proposal:
Change all \tlp_ functions to \tlist_ , leave all \tlist_ functions as
they are, and let the argument specification clarify whether we're
dealing with a token list or a token list pointer. There are no
clashes in the function names (as far as I can see).
This has precedence, for example, with
My only doubt is that \tlp_ is "more snappy". But changing \tlist_ to
\tlp_ clearly doesn't work.
For suffixes, I actually think that _tlp works fine, since it doesn't
need to be the same as the module name (e.g., see \prop_ and _plist).
But I do think the naming of the modules and their data types could
use some re-evaluation.
We currently have:
MODULE DATATYPE PREFERRED
\clist_ _clist * (no better options?)
\seq_ _seq * (snappy)
\toks_ _toks * (snappy)
\prop_ _plist (inconsistent module/datatype names vs. the
\tlp_ _tlp (problem with tlp vs. tlist)
I'm proposing changing #5 above to:
\tlist_ _tlp * (inconsistent module/datatype, but snappy
Here are some other options of changes that could be made:
\prop_ _prop * (_prop is shorter and I think has more
What do you say? I'm uncomfortable with having separate modules for
\tlp_ and \tlist_ at the moment, and we could change _plist to _prop
at the same time. I don't think we should change this right now, but
(depending what the comments are here) I'll write it up as a major
"todo" once the test suite is ready.