Hello, 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? W