Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:34:43 +0100 |
Content-Disposition: |
inline |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Lars Hellström wrote:
> Hmm... Isn't
> \quark_if_no_value:nFT{##2}
> equivalent to
> \quark_if_no_value:nTF{##2}\use_arg_ii:nn\use_arg_i:nn
> ?
> This neither reads the TF arguments twice, nor does the quark test manually,
> but perhaps there are stylistic objections to it.
True, it gets the job done. As you indicate, stylistically it does not
look particularly nice. I am not claiming the FT variant is perfect
but at least it is quite clear what it does and clarity of the code is
important. However, I guess it is not particular important to avoid
reading the arguments twice so we could just drop this FT variant
completely.
Cheers,
--
Morten
|
|
|