On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Over all, I think I prefer the first option, as these do all go > together. (If we go for _every_, do we have a very short module > "l3every" for this? If not, where do these things go?) I think I agree with you here. And I think it would be fine to define these in l3toks for lack of any better location (they're not necessary "early", so it doesn't really matter, I suppose; since they're token registers then putting them in toks makes sense). > There is also the question of whether to provide a wrapper for > assignment to these, [...] > I'd probably argue that this is unnecessary. The \every... toks are all > quite low-level, and I think that it's perfectly logical if they are > given _toks names that they are then treated like any other toks. Again, I agree; packages like galley2 (in the case of \everypar) might well provide higher level interfaces and we don't need to do that on the lower level of expl3. Will