LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Mittelbach, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:07:18 +0100
text/plain (26 lines)
I wonder if we might want the concept of _unsafe functions, ie those that do not check but expect the programer to take care of that, while by default all others will be safe. In certain applications I could see speed/processing reasons for something like this. On the other hand one can question how much this matters these days.



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Will Robertson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Januar 2009 22:55
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: \tlist_head_iii:n "health warning"

On 30/01/2009, at 7:10 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> It occurs to me that the tlist head functions could do with a health 
> warning.  For example, try:
> \tlist_head_iii:n{1}
> The documentation doesn't explicitly say that you need to check first 
> that the tlist is sufficiently long.

I'd probably propose that it would be better if the function performed the check itself, or if the tlist were padded with empties or (probably not) \q_no_value's to prevent the error?