On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. Sounds like a good read for people like us to start using expl3 and help to stabilise it as soon as possible! Changes in expl3 are only a problem when we stop maintaining existing code. And I hope that after a (relatively) short time of practical use in "our" packages, the basic interface will be good enough to freeze. After all, we *want* to start using this stuff, right?! So it's in our interests to get it in a state whereby that is possible. (This reminds me of an interesting versioning idea: is it worth adding hooks in the package loading code so that when a user requests a specific version, the package is able to fall back on its old behaviour? Like an implicit "compatibility" switch. Something like \IfOldPackageDate{2006/06/08}{...implement old functionality...} ) > (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.) Agreed. Will