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