I've moved this discussion from c.t.t. because more people might  
comment here.

On 2008-09-07 22:53:13 +0930, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask] 
 > said:

> I'd not thought of that: I was looking for something specifically
> mentioning macros.  As you say, this works fine.  Perhaps a clue in
> source3.pdf would be helpful:
> "TeXhackers note: \cs{tlp_gput_right:Nn} can be used in a similar  
> manner
> to the \LaTeXe\ macro \cs{g@[log in to unmask]"

I've definitely thought about something like this before. I think  
you're right. Even if they're footnotes (and I think the TeXhacker  
sections should be, too) they would really help the transition.


As that section mentions (I think; it might actually be in the seq/ 
clist area) however, the naming system isn't ideal right now with both  
_put_left and _push doing the same thing. I prefer the former for  
consistency and the latter for, well, simplicity, so I'm not sure  
which should stay...

Maybe _append and _prepend would be better names in general?