On 08/12/2008, at 6:05 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Will Robertson writes: >> 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? > > that's the problem. It is something like \tlstream or \tstream > (operating on > an input stream of token (list)), but I'm not sure this makes it > better (only > longer) > > Another point to consider is that _tlp is the predominant storage > bin used > all over the place, so something snappy might be preferable over > something > longer (such as _tlist) An immodest proposal: Change all \tlp_ functions to \tlist_ , leave all \tlist_ functions as they are, and let the argument specification clarify whether we're dealing with a token list or a token list pointer. There are no clashes in the function names (as far as I can see). This has precedence, for example, with \clist_map_inline:Nn \clist_map_inline:cn \clist_map_inline:nn My only doubt is that \tlp_ is "more snappy". But changing \tlist_ to \tlp_ clearly doesn't work. For suffixes, I actually think that _tlp works fine, since it doesn't need to be the same as the module name (e.g., see \prop_ and _plist). But I do think the naming of the modules and their data types could use some re-evaluation. We currently have: MODULE DATATYPE PREFERRED \clist_ _clist * (no better options?) \seq_ _seq * (snappy) \toks_ _toks * (snappy) \prop_ _plist (inconsistent module/datatype names vs. the above) \tlp_ _tlp (problem with tlp vs. tlist) I'm proposing changing #5 above to: \tlist_ _tlp * (inconsistent module/datatype, but snappy at least) Here are some other options of changes that could be made: \tlist_ _tlist \tlist_ _tl \clist_ _clp \prop_ _prop * (_prop is shorter and I think has more meaning) \plist_ _plist \plist_ _plp What do you say? I'm uncomfortable with having separate modules for \tlp_ and \tlist_ at the moment, and we could change _plist to _prop at the same time. I don't think we should change this right now, but (depending what the comments are here) I'll write it up as a major "todo" once the test suite is ready. Will