Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:06:40 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
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: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|