On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:35:33 +0100, Andreas Matthias wrote:



Hi Andreas,



> Recently, the names of some control sequences were changed in svn.

> Maybe this is a good time to think about other names as well.

>

> * \int_set:Nn uses \numexpr to scan its second argument. Shouldn't

>   it rather be called \int_set:Nx?



True, the base form of the function \int_set: does do this x expansion.  

However, these assignment functions are a bit different from other types  

because there is no difference between \int_set:Nn and \int_set:Nx and so  

perhaps it is better to stick to the base form definition using Nn rather  

than Nx as that would imply there is a base form too.



For things such as \int_compare:nNnTF, having a name with xNxTF argument  

spec might imply the function is not expandable but it is.



> * \quark_if_no_value gives the impression that this is a test

>   `if a quark has no value'. But actually it is a test `if a token

>   list is equal to \q_no_value'. Wouldn't \tlist_if_q_no_value be

>   a better name?

>   Same for: \quark_if_nil --> \tlist_if_q_nil



The quark functions need a bit of clarification. Just the other day I  

uploaded a new version where there is one special quark used for tail  

recursions and functions testing for just this quark.



What is more or less implemented now for \q_nil etc. is that the test is  

essentially a \tlist test so your question makes a lot of sense. However,  

the original concept was not this but rather that one should just check if  

a token list begins with such a quark because it should happen under  

controlled circumstances. The new tail recursion tests is a step in that  

direction so that there is a well-defined interface for using the quark.  

So far l3tlp and l3clist have been updated to use it, others will follow.



-- 

Morten