Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > If "/" does not prove to be suitable, then it can easily be changed to > > something else at some later point. > >with absolutely the same argument i vote for keeping it the way as it >is. Why bother about voting if you are the man? :-) >..the specification says \<module>_<funcname>:<argspec> and it is as >trivial as changing / to something else to replace \\[a-zA-Z]+_ by >\\[a-zA-Z]+/ and i'm happy to do this if there is a need for this, Clearly not as it excludes those who want to experiment with submodules... > eg >if you prove me wrong and your module/submodule mechanism can be made >workable in practise or if after experiencing with the code i got >enough people (that used it) saying that they feel \foo/bar:nn is >better readable to them than \foo_bar:nn ...and then nobody will bother developing it. :-) 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/>