On 5/29/14, Jura Pintar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Wait, how is that not covered by .bool_set:N and .bool_set_inverse:N?
>> Doing " turnfooingon .bool_set:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool " and "
>> turnfooingoff .bool_set_inverse:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool " allows the
>> user to use the keys turnfooingon and turnfooingoff as you describe.
>> Well, it
>> also allows the user to do weirder things like "turnfooingoff=false" to
>> turn
>> fooing on.
>>
>> Bruno
>
> You're totally right: it is. I think I let my mind wander a bit when I was
> writing the example... What's actually at issue is whether constructions
> along the lines of
>
>     \mymoduledoclevelsetup{ fooing = activate }
>     \mymoduledoclevelsetup{ fooing = deactivate }
>
> should be tacitly encouraged by making
>
>     \keys_define:nn { mymodule }
>      {
>         fooing              .choice: ,
>         fooing/ activate    .bool_set_true:N  = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool ,
>         fooing / deactivate .bool_set_false:N = \l_mymodule_fooing_bool
>      }
>
> available out of the box, or whether it's better to leave it to package
> authors to use .code:n or some such alternative if they want to get
> this behaviour.
>
> Best,
>
> Jura

Ah, ok, I understand.  And I don't have a preference either way.

Regards,
Bruno