Will Robertson wrote: > I think for now assume that anything that's written with the expl3 > package(s) is to be used in a LaTeX2e environment. I guess I consider it > a bit like the etoolbox package: it provides package writers with better > tools to do their job. Worry about LaTeX3 when there's actual talk of > formats being built that drop LaTeX2e support. The difference (in the short term) is that etoolbox is "stable". So I can use that in production packages and not worry about the macros available altering in the future. Anything I write with expl3 is itself experimental as a result. [Of course, I note that etoolbox has had some renames going on. However, it is "released" and most of the changes were pretty soon after it came out. So the general point stands.] > (Err, agreed, everyone?) > > This way you can minimise the code you have to write (since whichever > LaTeX2e package provides it) and it will perhaps become clearer which > (currently external) packages do need to be pulled into the kernel. Here is the point, really. I can write what I like using expl3, but I can't release it as production. So everything has to be done twice, once in standard TeX/LaTeX and once in expl3 (if I want to do the later at all). That will change when the current l3 packages reach a point where I can rely on them not changing, where I can then write new stuff in l3 + support as needed from LaTeX2e packages, with the aim of minimising the later. (By the way, I can't see that any LaTeX3 kernel can possibly support 2e packages. Surely the entire thing will be structured so differently that writing the necessary hooks will be too much work.) -- Joseph Wright