On 05/12/2008, at 1:00 AM, Javier Bezos wrote: > Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying > the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but > I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled). : is just a letter character; it's just convention that puts it only once in the function names. Other package writers may well do odd things in their naming if they wish :) Does \module:name:suffix have any advantage over \module_name:suffix ? There are some inconsistencies at the moment with initial prefixes -- but we're trying to fix this up ASAP to minimise the number of (or, at least, better organise the) "module prefixes" we're using. > (Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the > near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX, > to be honest.) That's understandable. I'm very interested in seeing what happens there. Will