Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:50:52 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Joseph,
philosophically tpls (token list pointers) have been invented precisely to be used to store data and not use "function definitions" for this (technically it uses \def:Npn of course, but it can for example do additional checks).
another way to look at it is to think about whether "store_something" is used in a way of a variable or more in a way of a function call. I have had situations where I prefered to think of stored data as being stored in a function. For example in an interface for title page design, I had a bunch of functions (with arguments) and a bunch of functions without arguments (where where nothing else than storage bins really. But I treated them as functions because in the context of that interface it gave a uniform view rather than having some tings being variables and others being functions (with an argument) but essentially doing the same thing.
so it depends I would say, but normally data bins should be variables of type _tlp
frank
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Joseph Wright
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 16:37
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: tlp type
Hello,
A "philosophy" question. For storing values that will be used "as is", normally one would do \def\storesomething{Something}. In the LaTeX3 model, I can choose either
\def:NNn \store_something: 0 {Something}
or
\tlp_new:N \l_store_something_tlp
\tlp_set:Nn \l_store_something_tlp {Something}
and get the same result, function-wise. Is the later closer to the model proposed, or should I stick with the former?
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|