On 20/09/2010, at 6:41 AM, Arno Trautmann wrote:

> \ExplSyntaxNamesOn
> \bool_if_p:n{
> \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} ||
> \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4}
> }
> \ExplSyntaxNamesOff
> 
> \end{document}
> 
> In SyntaxNames, I get the error
> 
> ! Use of \bool_|_0:w doesn't match its definition.
> <argument>  \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} ||
>                                          \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4}
> l.16 }
> 
> The use of && is successfull in both cases, though. I guess this is
> because the line in ExplSyntax:
> 
> \tex_catcode:D 124=11 \tex_relax:D % vertical bar, other
> 
> is missing in SyntaxNames.
> So is it intended that boolean expressions cannot be fully evaluated in
> SyntaxNames? Or didn’t anybody have requested this yet?


I'd like to hear the opinions of the others; I guess this is an edge case to using SyntaxNames. Ideally, perhaps, we should make \bool_if:n more robust so the catcode of | isn't as critical.


-- Will