Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:46:57 +0930 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--893405777; micalg=sha1;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
On 13/08/2009, at 2:43 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Are we approaching a consensus on this (if not what everyone considers
> ideal, at least on something most of us can live with)?
Seems great to me. I think it strikes a good balance.
I'll be interested in hearing Morten's and Frank's views (although I
understand they might not get the opportunity).
* * *
As far as the definition of the processors is concerned, I think I
prefer using a pre-determined toks variable rather than a more
abstract "#1". That is, to write
{ >{\my_sanitise:n} m }
\cs_set:Nn \my_sanitise:n {
\toks_set:Nn \l_xparse_arg_toks { <something with #1> }
}
rather than
{ >{\my_sanitise:Nn} m }
\cs_set:Nn \my_sanitise:Nn {
\toks_set:Nn #1 { <something with #2> }
}
It looks better, to me, that processor functions have a single-letter
signature in their simplest form. (It seems pretty clear that we
should be using functions with expl3 names here?)
* * *
Also, I think this is about as simple as we can get. We could
theoretically have a function like
\xparse_return_arg:n { <something with #1> }
instead of the \toks_set:Nn, but this would still require scratch
variables to manipulate #1 in the first place. So no gain.
Best regards,
Will
|
|
|