Joseph Wright writes: > > > > if we accept that the current xparse is really xparse-2e (whether we call > > it that or not) then one consequence from this for me is that xparse-2e > > should offer the possibility to define commands with a syntax that fits > > current 2e. > > Not quite sure I follow the paragraph! sorry not very clear I agree. This remark was largely due to a misunderstanding on my part from reading the current documentation For example \foo {[}bar]{baz} shouldn't be interpreted as \foo[bar]{baz} (which it isn't, except in a special extension). So I guess current xparse does provide the right level of mimicking 2e syntax (even if the optional arg magic is a slight deviation from current practice) - in short ignore the remark > > I would expect that once we have a clearer picture of how to do the separation > > between layer -1 and layer 0 all this needs rewriting anyway > > > > I also hope (and expect) that once we are clear on how to write specifications > > for layer 0 properly, that other interfaces for layer -1 will be written, both > > because more than one might be needed and because we need some trials to > > settle on what we want to promote as that standard layer -1 for latex3 > > As you probably realise, my overall feeling is that for many (most?) end > users, a LaTeX2e-like syntax will remain the best way to use LaTeX > whatever we deliver as LaTeX3. agreed, but that doesn't mean that it (the final standard syntax) is equal to 2e syntax > So xparse having a mainly LaTeX2e-like focus does not worry me too > much. I'd say that I think the underlying idea is a bit more flexible than > just forming LaTeX syntax (as we use abstract concepts such as "optional > argument" in preference to more concrete ones such as "argument delimited > by "[" ... "]"). it doesn't worry me at all, as far as my sentiments are going I'm not really concerned about the precise layer -1 syntax at all at this stage - any will do. But I also see the need for experiments and a clean separation (which we don't have yet) between layer -1 and layer 0 would make this easier. This does not prohibit us to provide a stable version for now even if imperfect. On the contrary, I agree that it is needed to allow using the more interesting parts and I also agree that it looks like xparse is fitting that bill. On the other hand I would probably prefer the current state to be called xparse-2e and run with that as stable. Then Bill, for example, could easily build a matching xparse-gellmu and promote using this document level syntax for accessing the other latex3 layers, etc. And we can leave the name xparse for a more "final" interface version. frank