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
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:06:40 +0200
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From:
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Am 12.10.2011 08:06, schrieb Joseph Wright:
>>
>>> Rather than \regex_extract_once:nnN, I would probably call it
>>> \regex_extract_first:nnN.
>>
>> Not sure about that. We already have \tl_replace_(once|all):Nnn, which
>> is what prompted me to use once there. @Joseph (and others), would
>> \tl_replace_first:Nnn make more sense than _once?
>
> For the moment, go with 'once', and we can discuss separately whether it
> should be once/all or first/all in general. (We've only just changed
> this from having 'in' in the name, which has caused confusion enough!)

on first glance "first" feels more precise than once. But I guess this 
is not really true since it requires knowledge that processing is left 
to right. But personally I like "first" better.

Having said that I agree with Joseph that for now use "once" to keep 
common name structures.

frank

ATOM RSS1 RSS2