Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:52:46 +0000 |
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: |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 23:22, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > I had a look back through the current code, to think about things more
> > generally. One thing that stuck me is that \box_new:N gives a void box,
> > \box_use_clear:N gives a void box but \box_clear:N gives an empty
> > (h)box.
>
> you sure? that shouldn't be the case. It is supposed to be set eq to
> \c_empty_box which in turn should be a void box in fact the plain TeX \voidb@x
> right now
You are right: I was misled by 'empty' in the name. So things are
consistent, but named awkwardly. Perhaps this should be '\c_unset_box',
with \box_unset:N and \box_if_unset:N(TF) following naturally. (I still
don't like \box_use_unset:N, as the concept of use-and-unset jars
compared to the other variable types. However, the name would at least
be consistent with the other functions.)
What is clear is that 'empty' is a pretty bad choice of name here :-)
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|