On 08/12/2008, at 2:04 AM, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > well you got me thinking on that level, because tlp could be named > tlist to > fit with plist clist. > > the problem seems to be more in the later addition of the \tlist > functions > that in contrast to anything else do not operate on some storage > bins but on > tokens in the input stream. Hmmm, I agree tlist would be nice and consistent; after all we don't have "clist pointers" and "plist pointers". But then what would we rename what are currently tlists? >> So in the documentation when we write >> \toks_set:Nn <toks> {<token list>} >> cf. >> \tlp_set:Nn <tlp> {<token list>} > > which is perfectly correct as far as I can see. Am I dense? > ... yes, ok I am, there is one difference in the handling of #. > Anything else? Not as far as I'm aware... >> I'm still thinking there's nothing we can do but refer to the >> contents >> of both as "token lists" and just mention the differences at the >> beginning of l3tlp and l3toks. > > probably; a quick read through the TeX book seems to indicate that > Don also > didn't try to work this out in his BNF in both cases it is <balanced > text> Okay, that settles it. "token list" is fine for both (which I prefer to "balanced text", for what it's worth). Will