Sun, 7 Jul 2013 17:40:46 +0100
On 07/07/2013 17:28, Marco Daniel wrote:
>> The team intend to modify the existing \<thing>_case:nnn functions,
>> renaming the last argument as 'F'. This reflects the fact that this
>> final argument is used only when the test case (<thing>-dependent) is
>> logically false, and follows the approach used elsewhere.
> I think it's not a good decision. The argument specifier F implies for
> me that there is also a true part (T). So I would prefer to use
This has already been raised internally by members of the team :-) The
addition of \<thing>_case:nnTF may happen, as it covers the 'if there is
a hit, always do ...' situation without code duplication.
>> At the same
>> time, we intend to introduce \<thing>_case:nn, where there is no false
>> branch (i.e. where 'do nothing' is the appropriate action).
> I think this is a good decision.
This is actually what prompted us to look at this.
> I hope it's ok to post my thoughts here.
> Best regards
The point of having a public list :-)