Frank Mittelbach wrote: > I like the article (and as I said once it is ready I would like to like or > have a copy for the LaTeX web site). > > a couple of comments (in random oder) > > - I already made a remark concerning tlp not being similar to strings (tokens > aren't chars so token lists aren't strings) I think this is dangerous to > imply Okay, I'll go back over this. I guess that the point I'm thinking about is that if you have experience in other languages, you expect there to be a string variable type. As TeX deals with text, not having strings is very odd. I'm trying (and obviously failing) to point out that what you might do with a string in say BASIC you can do with a tlp in LaTeX3. > - early on you imply that in section 3.1 + 3.2 you explain the <arg-spec> but > I don't think that you really do it justice. > > * \def is rather a weird TeX thing so \def:Npn isn't a good example > really; perhaps using something with only standard args would be easier > to grasps at this point. > > > * more importantly, you don't really mention the big strength of the > arg-spec concept: > > - once you have a baase function, e.g. \foo:nnn > then any kind of arg manipulation comes for free, eg > > \foo:cnn \foo:noo \foo:nox what have you > > and if it is not predefined then there is a single unique way to > obain the missing variant > > rather than explaining that you go for \exp_args:... which are > meant to be used only to define the variant, ie not to be used > withing the code really. > > perhaps reshaping or extending that slightly would be an improvement I was trying to work from what TeX provides (and therefore people know), and both \def and \expandafter seemed to fit the bill. BTW, I'd missed the point that "\exp_args: ... not to be used within the code": I'll have to revisit some of my ideas. I will have a look at the draft over the weekend and post a note here once it is revised. I'm very happy to have constructive suggestions. -- Joseph Wright