LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:36:03 +0000
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: \clist_length:N and \clist_nth:N
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From:
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines) 
On 26/01/2011 13:19, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> I don't have any issue with element or elt (having been exposed to lisp long time ago) but my feeling is that "length" is rather a good name for the concept, but then we should use it in other places too and get rid of elt_count there.
> 
> For _nth I think _element is ok, but I'm not so sure why _item would be bad. Don't see that there would be a conflict with other "items" of LaTeX. In fact it is the same concept, so why choose different names?

We seem to have something of a consensus on this: 'length' and 'item'
seem to be the best choices.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2