When I did some modules programming, I arrived at a more general idea than the one in the expl3 draft: The construction \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/<object> should be interpreted as though the <object> is called within the <module_k>, which is a submodule of <module_(k-1)>, and so forth. In LaTeX3, one could have a naming convention that there should be a command with the same name. However, the actual interpretation is somewhat deeper: The <object> is called within the module whose full name is \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/, and it should be called within the conventions that this module determines to fit. Therefore not merely the command name \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/<object> is called, but the command name \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/ with <object> as an argument: Then the command \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/ can determine what conventions to use; for example, it could merely expand to \<module_1>/.../<module_k>/<object>. The point is that one could define modules with more flexible syntax. This could be a module with HTML syntax, even though if just that is possible. Therefore I am inclined to believe that in the syntax \<module>_<description>:<arg-spec>, the :<arg-spec> should not be a part of the name of the command, but something that can be extracted when knowing the name \<module>_<description>. But perhaps this is too complicated (or too inefficient) to implement on the development level: Perhaps one could implement user level commands with simplified names instead. The best would perhaps to let an improved version of TeX itself sort out which of the different copies of \<module>_<description>:<arg-spec> should be used for a given \<module>_<description> (in so called "name overloading"). Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]> * Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/> * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>