LEL is a potential future project for giving semantics to LES. That is, unlike most programming languages which are designed as a single monolithic unit, LEL is explicitly separated into a syntax part (that's LES) and a semantics part (that's LEL).
I started by creating something extremely simple and modest: a very simple macro language that compiles down to C#. I originally called this "micro-LEL", and I used it to bootstrap the parser generator, [LLLPG], by enabling me to input a grammar into it. However, "micro-LEL" did not seem like an appropriate name because it is not descriptive and may not closely resemble whatever I finally create and call "LEL".
I decided to rename micro-LEL to LeMP (Lexical Macro Processor), which more correctly describes what it is: a fancy preprocessor. However, currently it is still built from a project called LEL to LEL.exe.
When I completed the EC# parser, I also used LeMP to process the EC# code. Thus LeMP is really not a layer built on top of LES, rather it is something syntax-independent. So one can refer to LeMP-on-top-of-LES as LeMP-LES and LeMP-on-top-of-EC# as LeMP-EC#.
So that we're clear: LEL does not exist and I have not yet even designed it. But I know what I want it to be: a simple, statically typed, imperative but expression-based, extensible and democratic language.
Originally I thought the semantics and type system of LEL would just copy EC#, so that LEL is merely a simplified syntax for EC#. But now I'm more inclined to think that it might be better to make a superior programming language that breaks free from the history of C#... well, no, then again, I have a better idea. LEL should refer to [Standard Imperative Language] (whatever that turns out to be) as incarnated in LES, plus macros to help provide a friendly notation.
That doesn't mean there won't or shouldn't be an LES-based syntax for EC#. Once EC# exists it will be easy to create a friendly LES-based syntax for it, but it should probably be given a name like "EC#/LES" that clearly suggests what it is.
Nor can I promise I won't make my own new programming language from scratch. But "Loyc Expression Language" sounds like something that should be a universal standard, not something that belongs to me personally. So if I ever create an all-new language, I'll use a different name.
It's not easy to make a language that anyone can easily modify in a standard way. In fact, I've been thinking about the problem for years without finding a satisfying solution. Therefore, my plan is to figure out how some existing extensible languages accomplish their extensibility, and copy them. In particular, I have my eye on Nemerle.