Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote: >> Probably a good idea. I'd prefer to have something we can all agree >> stays, then add .set:N back later if it is wanted. Expect an update later. > > On general principles, I think it's indeed better to add things later than > remove things later :-) That's the model I've used. For the moment, I've taken .set:N out, and moved some of the support macros to l3prg. So .tl_set:N, etc. will definitely stay from now on. -- Joseph Wright