Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:40:07 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 08/08/2012 22:33, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> Is there some preferred style for referring to a family of function
> variants? For example, from xpeek:
>
> % \begin{macro}[aux]{\@@_if_in:NNTF}
> % \begin{arguments}
> % \item Token-list to search through (the “haystack”)
> % \item Token to search for (the “needle”)
> % \end{arguments}
> % Among the \cs{tl_if_in:**\textit{TF}} conditionals
> % defined in \pkg{expl3}, \cs{tl_if_in:NNTF} is missing.
> % But since that’s the functionality I need, define it:
> % \begin{macrocode}
>
> Is “\tl_if_in:**TF” (with or without “TF” being italicized) a
> recognizable, non-ambiguous way to refer to those functions as a set,
> or is there a nomenclature already in use that I should rather adopt?
>
> —Joel
>
The team docs use something akin to regex syntax for this, but with a
slight 'twist'. In particular
\@@_if_in:NN(TF)
is used to refer to \@@_if_in:NNT, \@@_if_in:NNF and \@@_if_in:NNTF, but
also \@@_if_in_p:NN if it exists.
On the other hand, something like
\@@_set:(N|c)n
would refer to \@@_set:Nn and \@@_set:cn.
Often, within a syntax block the approach take is to refer to a 'base'
function only, so \@@_set:Nn, with the implication being that 'the same
follows' for variants as there is a defined relationship between these.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|