## 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 >>]

Morten Høgholm wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:35:33 +0100, Andreas Matthias wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
>> Recently, the names of some control sequences were changed in svn.
>> Maybe this is a good time to think about other names as well.
>>
>> * \int_set:Nn uses \numexpr to scan its second argument. Shouldn't
>>   it rather be called \int_set:Nx?
>
> True, the base form of the function \int_set: does do this x
> expansion.  However, these assignment functions are a bit different
> from other types  because there is no difference between
> \int_set:Nn and \int_set:Nx and so  perhaps it is better to stick
> to the base form definition using Nn rather  than Nx as that would
> imply there is a base form too.

When I first used these functions I added a lot of \exp_args:... and
\exp_after:NN just to realize afterwards that they are not necessary
at all. An x arg-spec would have helped me a lot to get things right
from the beginning.

> For things such as \int_compare:nNnTF, having a name with xNxTF
> argument  spec might imply the function is not expandable but it
> is.

Should the arg-spec indicate whether a function is expandable or
not?

Ciao
Andreas