LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML 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:
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:25:19 +0100
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From:
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Will Robertson wrote:
 > If it's going to need such contents, would it make more sense to use a
> _toks datatype the whole way though?

Okay, I have "redone the exercise" in this way.

>> 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.

That was my guess too.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2