Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:30:19 +1030
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Joseph Wright
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Over all, I think I prefer the first option, as these do all go
> together. (If we go for _every_, do we have a very short module
> "l3every" for this? If not, where do these things go?)
I think I agree with you here. And I think it would be fine to define
these in l3toks for lack of any better location (they're not necessary
"early", so it doesn't really matter, I suppose; since they're token
registers then putting them in toks makes sense).
> There is also the question of whether to provide a wrapper for
> assignment to these, [...]
> I'd probably argue that this is unnecessary. The \every... toks are all
> quite low-level, and I think that it's perfectly logical if they are
> given _toks names that they are then treated like any other toks.
Again, I agree; packages like galley2 (in the case of \everypar) might
well provide higher level interfaces and we don't need to do that on
the lower level of expl3.