Hi Morten,

> That is not my experience. The times I've had to use the "w" type has been
> in situations where I needed to gobble a user command that happened to
> take an optional argument. And in those cases the reason has been that I
> didn't use xparse. If I did I would define those user commands as
> something like this:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{xparse,ldcsetup}
> \InternalSyntaxOn
>
> \def\MH_test_user_command:nn #1 #2 {#1,#2}
> \DeclareDocumentCommand \usercommand { O{`opt'} m }
>    { \MH_test_user_command:nn {#1}{#2} }
>
> \begin{document}
> \usercommand{uu}
>
> \usercommand[xx]{uu}
> \end{document}
>
> Then gobbling is done on the internal macro when needed.
>
> Perhaps you can think of other cases - if so don't hesitate to post them.

Thanks for the example. Since I didn't finish reading yet,
I don't have a clear vision on the implications of the
naming convention. But when reading the document, I started
to wonder whether it would be flexible enough or not. I
can't think of explicit examples right now since I first
have to finish reading all the details of the new implementation.

But thanks for the message. It takes away a question that I
had after reading this information.

Best regards,
-Hendri.