## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: Function renaming: \_case:nnn to \_case:nnF Bruno Le Floch <[log in to unmask]> Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:07:35 -0400 text/plain (36 lines) Hi, >> In fact one could think of also having >> >> \_case:nnTF >> >> where the T branch is selected if you have a match (in addition to >> executing any match code from the "n" argument). > This sounds more logical for me and I really like this idea. I think the > true part is mostly a message instead of a function. However for me as a > beginner it's more consistent in a expl3 manner. ;-) > > So after this small discuss I vote for the following: > > \_case:nn_p > \_case:nnF > \_case:nnT > \_case:nnTF I don't think we can really have \_case_p:nn (note that you misplaced the "_p"), because the \_case:nn part leaves tokens in the input stream, that would interact badly with the boolean expression code. E.g.,     \bool_if:nTF { \int_case_p:nn {1*0} { {0}{} {1}{} } } would only work because all "code" brace groups are empty. I believe that such a situation would be a job for a different function, \_any:nn(TF), to be discussed separately:     \int_if_any:nnTF {1*0} { {0} {1} } ...     \bool_if:nTF { \int_if_any_p:nn {1*0} { {0} {1} } } ... Regards, Bruno