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