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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Mittelbach, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:04:48 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
yeah ... and I would claim that this urge of you goes in completely the wrong direction :-)

my take is that the recent addition of \def:NNn and firends was already a mistake and should be reverted. These functions provide something which at the expl3 level isn't really needed. What is gained from having the alternative between

\def:Npn #1#2#3 {...}

and

\def:NNn 3 {...}

the former is much more general (and on expl3 level that generality is sometimes needed), I would claim it is easier to read as the # signs stand out better than a simple "3".

it is a bit like the newcount newcounter discussion yeaterday ... \def:NNn is kind of an attempt to carry more or less "user-level" functions into the language and they don't belong there

cheers
frank

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Will Robertson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 17:23
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: tlp type

On 10/09/2008, at 12:43 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> 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.

Yeah; if people start using "\def:NNn 0" a lot, I'd be pretty tempted to define a \def:Nn variant...

W

ATOM RSS1 RSS2