Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:06:08 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Will Robertson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Joseph Wright
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've been writing a talk about LaTeX3, and something struck me. Why is it
>> \exp_after:NN and no \exp_after:NO?
>
> Or even \exp_args:NO, which saves us a char. (In fact, we could drop
> the "s" in all of the \exp_args functions and save us another...)
True, \exp_args:NO makes sense. I think that the "s" is handy in some
of the cases where more than one argument is altered, so for the sake of
one character I'd leave it alone.
> I guess \exp_after:NN is an edge-case of the naming scheme. In fact,
> it should probably be called \exp_after:ww because in a case like
> this:
> \foo\expandafter{\bar}
> the opening brace doesn't really qualify as a "N" type argument.
In the main, with all of the \exp_args functions the average programmer
should only need \exp_after:NN for the simple case of getting past a
macro, not another token. In general, it seems that the :w functions
tend to be ones where there is a better alternative for most scenarios.
So I'd be wary of using :ww here.
Joseph
--
Joseph Wright Tel. 01604 810094
Morning Star Mobile 07974 148180
2 Dowthorpe End
Earls Barton
Northants NN6 0NH
|
|
|