Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:46:36 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Andreas,
small addendum
>
> > > And then: What's the error message in \tlp_use:N for? It looks
> > > so arbitrarily. Probably it's not?
> >
> > well I don't know when that was added, but i can see some logic behind it (not
> > that i think it is worth having really (as i think one should get rid of the
> > whole cmd). I think the idea was that a tlp is a storage bin so could never be
> > "\scan_stop:", but either "empty" or contains a list of tokens. So
> > "\scan_stop:" means something like \tlp_use:c tried to use a tlp that simply
> > doesn't exist
>
> Oh, of course. I couldn't figure out where the \scan_stop: should
> come from. But then I didn't thought about \tlp_use:c.
obviously if the tlp has to be constructed first one needs a construction
function, so \tlp_use:c is necessary even if one can leave out the \tlp_use:N
and from experience if the construction ends up with a previously undeclared
tlp then usually things go wrong as it then equals \scan_stop: which is
neither expandable (a feature tlps have) nor a "possible" value ie not at all the
same as
\tlp_new:Nn\l_foo_tlp{}
or
\tlp_new:Nn\l_foo_tlp{\scan_stop:}
so the check and the error message make sense here.
cheers
frank
|
|
|