Am 07.06.2012 10:15, schrieb Lars Hellström:
>>> Other approaches I would find preferable to %<@@=foo> is to use
>>> %%% lines (as an homage to mft) or explicit commands in the .ins
>>> file; after all, most source files don't contain code for
>>> multiple l3-modules.
>> To be honest I don't like that much but perhaps this is something
>> one just needs getting used to.
> Note that these are "/other/ possibilities I would actually find
> preferable to assignment-guards"; you snipped my preferred realm of
> solution without comment.

sorry that was after midnight. You mean

> FWIW, an alternative way of embedding extra directives into a .dtx
> file that I have in production is to designate a specific docstrip
> module as containing code that is directives for the stripper. If one
> picks the very crude syntax for "directives" that each codeline in
> the @@ module sets the current @@ replacement then the above could
> become
> %<@@>foo
> %<*pkg>
> \@@_function:nn   % Will be converted to \__foo_function:nn
> \l_@@_variable_tl % Will be converted to \l__foo_variable_tl
> %</pkg>

Maybe I still don't quite understand directives but


doesn't really look much different to


except that I think it is less readable but mileage may vary

Perhaps you can expand on that once more?