Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:07:31 +0930
On 10/09/2008, at 8:10 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> When I first read about expl3 years ago, indeed I was naively
>> disappointed that the variants weren't constructed "on the fly". But
>> that's obviously impossible.
> obviously impossible is perhaps too strong a word
I do have a tendency to exaggerate :)
> for example, while tlp and toks probably need access equally from
> both sides
> this is questionable for clists (imho). so just providing the base
> rather than 10 variants on top for the _left case here isn't
> something I would
> feel too bad about.
Leaving aside the further-reaching implications of switching to a push/
pop naming scheme exclusively (which I have no comment on right now),
this issue of _left and _right functions being rather different in
their usage patterns does concern me a little bit.
For now I'll leave them "symmetrical" but this should be re-evaluated
at the same time the push/pop/etc terminology is decided.
>> So I was probably a little unclear about my intentions for that code.
>> Does my reasoning make sense, in the end?
> my initial mail was not a reply to the specific proposal but about
> the danger
> of going overboard with providing all kind of variants
Noted and agreed, thanks. Please do let me know when I'm overstepping
the mark, however.
I'll trim down what's currently there and re-document the unusual
variants that have been added to expl3 for the one or two instances
they're used in the xpackages.