LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

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 >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:07:30 +1030
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Hi Philipp,

Just a quick reply to one of your comments.

On 11/02/2010, at 10:27 AM, Philipp Stephani wrote:

> fgrep -n 'd:' *.dtx says that there is exp_not:d in l3expan.dtx:952.

Thanks for pointing this out; not sure how we missed it really.

> Perhaps "\exp_not" is sometimes a misnomer? \exp_not:o means "expand exactly once", and not "expand not". Using that convention, you could also define a macro \exp_not:x for exhaustive expansion. I think the meaning of the specifiers should not contradict the meaning of the macro name.

The argument specifiers have nothing to do with the macro name and do not contradict it.

\exp_not:n{...} means "do not expand the contents an expanding context".

\exp_args:No \exp_not:n {...} , which is \exp_not:o, means "expand the argument once" then "do not expand the contents in an expanding context". 

So the "exp_not" refers only to the material passed to it as an argument, which has nothing to do with the fact that the argument happens to be expanded once beforehand.

(And \exp_not:x, for which we would need an expandable \exp_arg:x, would be useless.) 

-- Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2