LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: \box_if_empty:N(TF) Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:05 +0100 text/plain (35 lines) Joseph Wright writes:  > On 07/01/2011 06:32, Will Robertson wrote:  > > I prefer "void" or "clear" instead of "unset" (all work as noun and verb), but I agree with changing the names. I don't mind the existence of "\box_use_clear:N" (or whatever) but I can see your argument against it. Is there any non-neglible performance decrease from writing  > >  > > \box_use:N \l_tmpa_box  > > \box_clear:N \l_tmpa_box  > >  > > over  > >  > > \box_use_clear:N \l_tmpa_box  > >  > > ? If not, I'd be happy to drop the use_clear function for the reason of consistency, as you note.  >  > Over all, I think 'void' is possible still the best choice. It suggests  > more than just 'empty', which 'clear' does not. So \box_void:N,  > \box_if_void:N(TF), etc., seem best. it's your language guys, but for me the preferred order would be  unset as it is the opposite of "set"  void clear I think is bad as it implies to me empty and it such a register isn't empty is is no longer "set" so that it can be used Even though no longer of such importance I still think that "unsetting" or "voiding" a box register after use if no longer needed is a good ground rule, so to clearly support that I would keep \box_use_unset:N or \box_use_void:N available, but as Will mentioned writing it out as two function calls is not too difficult. So I don't mind much (by the way there is also \hbox_unpack_... etc which should get the same treatment, whatever it is). frank