Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:06:30 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Will Robertson wrote:
>> I think it is then much
>> harder to see what is going on. So if it were down to me I'd keep the
>> T/F idea, although I'd aim for lower case as these can take braced
>> arguments.
>
> On the other hand, as exceptions, 'F' and 'T' stand out a little bit
> more than if they were lowercase :)
Yes, I can see why they are upper case. I was just thinking about the
logic of the situation.
>>> While we might be able to create a better system than we've got now, is
>>> it worth it?
>>
>> Once again, if it were down to me I'd not make more changes than are
>> really needed. In that sense, this entire discussion could be somewhat
>> redundant: things already work reasonably well.
>
> Yes, I agree!
>
>> I'd still argue that
>> \exp_after:NN is not representative of what it does, so using the
>> current specifiers would prefer \exp_args:NE. That change at least
>> should be relatively easy.
>
> Well, I think writing it as \exp_after:wN is "most correct", but in the
> end I hope that we shouldn't really be using it much in expl3 programming.
I've always taken it that :w covered any "odd" argument specifier, i.e.
you don't need :wN as the N in this case is covered by the :w. For example
\def:Npn \temp:w #1#2 AB #3 {DO STUFF}
doesn't have three argument specifiers.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|