J.Fine a écrit : > Thank you. It's not the only nice thing we can do. Here are some more: > > * Allow digits in control sequence names > * Allow period in control sequence names I think the naming scheme (at the programming level at leat) has been discussed previously and is now considered stable. Let's not re-discuss again and again points were decisions are already made. (And btw, I personnaly think the namign scheme in expl3 is good.) > * Allow '~' to produce a space /in all circumstances/ > What would be the purpose? > The LaTeX3 project has put much effort into naming conventions for control > sequences. I think having the ability to name parameters will bring > at least the same benefit. > I think realism should also be a key word if we ever want to be a stable LaTeX3. And I really would like to see it :-) >> it doesn't seem that important to me how we refer to >> arguments within a macro. > I agree with your (Will) argument and conclusion on this point. > Which is easier to type and to read? > \wibble.wobble_trip > \wibble_wobble_trip > It depends on your personal habits. The second one is perfectly fine for me. (After all, unlike most language, we have to type \ in the front of every "function", so let's not try to mimick other languages too much.) > We could even go further and implement something much more > like a real module system for macro programming. Something > that would raise load- or compile-time import errors, rather than > the current run-time error. > Again, let's be realistic. There is already some error handling done. Moreover, the distinction between load, compile and run time doesn't seem relevant for TeX. Manuel.