Joseph Wright writes: > The reason I'm interested in \everyeof as well is for using \scantokens > in a context such as: > > \def\tempa#1{% > \begingroup > % Some catcode changes > \everyeof{\noexpand}% > \endlinechar-1\relax > \edef\tempb{\scantokens{#1}}% > \expandafter\endgroup > \expandafter\def\expandafter\tempc\expandafter{\tempb}% > } > > which fails without the \everyeof setting. That I know of there is no > way to "bundle up" the various components, so without access to > \everyeof, \scantokens is not much use (at least to me). sure. well for now I would suggest to use \tex_every_eof:D knowing quite well you do something you shouldn't (not that you could help it at this point in time:-) and with the knowledge that once we come up with an interface in l3file or else you may have to redo that bit of code. My point is that I don't want to saction the use of the primitive by giving it a name but what this also tells me is that we have to perhaps even retract on providing \scantokens as a primitive, but instead provide a scantokens interface which sets up its environment carefully (by, for example, copying a specific toks (e.g., \l_every_rescan_end_toks to \tex_every_eof:D prior to calling \etex_scantokens:D) rather than providing the primitive for direct use. frank