Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:04:48 +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: |
|
|
yeah ... and I would claim that this urge of you goes in completely the wrong direction :-)
my take is that the recent addition of \def:NNn and firends was already a mistake and should be reverted. These functions provide something which at the expl3 level isn't really needed. What is gained from having the alternative between
\def:Npn #1#2#3 {...}
and
\def:NNn 3 {...}
the former is much more general (and on expl3 level that generality is sometimes needed), I would claim it is easier to read as the # signs stand out better than a simple "3".
it is a bit like the newcount newcounter discussion yeaterday ... \def:NNn is kind of an attempt to carry more or less "user-level" functions into the language and they don't belong there
cheers
frank
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Will Robertson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 17:23
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: tlp type
On 10/09/2008, at 12:43 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Will Robertson wrote:
>>
>> \def:Npn \store_something: {Something}
>>
>> (I prefer it without the "0" argument spec.)
>>
>
> I was wondering about this. For macros with no arguments, I was
> thinking :NNn has the advantage that the second N is "seen", whereas
> Npn has an invisible p argument.
Yeah; if people start using "\def:NNn 0" a lot, I'd be pretty tempted to define a \def:Nn variant...
W
|
|
|