On 12/09/2008, at 5:19 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> I'm having a slight issue with the \tlp_put macros. I'd like to store
> something containing a literal `#1'.
If it's going to need such contents, would it make more sense to use a
_toks datatype the whole way though?
> \def_long_new:Npn \tlp_put_right:Nn #1#2{
> \tlp_set:Nn \l_exp_tlp{#2}
> \tlp_set:Nx #1{\exp_not:o{#1}\exp_not:o{\l_exp_tlp}}
> }
>
> I get an error at the \tlp_set:Nn \l_exp_tlp stage. I wonder if there
> is a reason not to do:
>
> \def_long_new:Npn \tlp_put_right:Nn #1#2{
> \tlp_set:Nx #1{\exp_not:o{#1}\exp_not:n{#2}}
> }
>
> which does not suffer from the same issue.
Unless the whole point is to restrict its use in this case, I can't
see why this isn't a better approach. I suspect it wasn't coded like
this in the first place because \exp_not:n isn't available without
eTeX. But I don't think we should worry about that these days.
Will