Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > A question raised elsewhere > > (http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/16351207#16351207) is > > of course whether "tl" is the right place for such functions at all. > > It's arguable that they can be regarded a "text" functions, so perhaps a > > "text manipulation" module would be a better location. That does not of > > course preclude discussing the detail of how they should also work, but > > may be worth consideration. Feedback here also welcome! > > One argument here is that *at present* it's not clear what might be a > 'better' location for case changing, while the need for the > functionality is apparent and an implementation is doable 'now'. Thus we > might argue that adding to tl with the possibility of a (well-defined) > move to another module could occur at some stage in the future. This > approach avoids adding new modules which turn out to be poorly defined. > > There is a tension there of course with 'stability': we are aiming not > to make changes without good reason, but at the same time are trying to > have have mechanisms which do allow for some change where this makes sense. the other concern that sticks in my mind, is frank suggesting case-diddling isn't really stuff for the latex kernel. does anyone know what context do? is there scope for joint work on a common module? robin standing on the edge and watching...