LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:13:10 +0200
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
AW: tlp type
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
A<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From:
"Mittelbach, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
to answer from my perspective:

i prefer \def:Npn over \def:NNn even for a function without arguments. I already wrote why i think there should not be any \def:NNn in the first place but beside that, having #1 #2 ... in case there are arguments is far more important to me than not having anything in case of no arguments (and the "p" stands out fairly well as well) ... but clearly those are all fairly subjective feelings about the universe

frank

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Joseph Wright
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 17:13
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: tlp type

Will Robertson wrote:
> 
> \def:Npn \store_something: {Something}
> 
> (I prefer it without the "0" argument spec.)
> 

I was wondering about this.  For macros with no arguments, I was thinking :NNn has the advantage that the second N is "seen", whereas Npn has an invisible p argument.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2