## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

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

 Re: \int_eval:n versus \dim_eval:n/skip_eval:n [was Re: l3luatex module] Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:18:37 +0000 text/plain (28 lines) On 06/01/2011 07:45, Will Robertson wrote: > Oh! I was confused -- for some reason it was in my head that using \the before \glueexpr would strip it of its "plus minus" components. But this is not the case, of course. > > \the\glueexpr 1pt plus 1pt minus 1pt + 2pt plus -1pt minus 1pt\relax > > So I agree with you that adding \tex_the:D before \dim_eval and \skip_eval (and \muskip_eval which doesn't yet exist I think but it probably should) is the best idea. I've gone back and forward through this, and I think in the end this is the best plan. In the end, expl3 should be designed 'on its own merits', and that may mean that some mixed plain TeX\expl3 cases are a little awkward. For what we want, an expandable \int_eval:n makes most sense, and by logical extension \dim_eval:n and \skip_eval:n should also be expandable. What we do need to do is to make sure that this is clear in the documentation, as Philipp has pointed out. Something like    After two expansions, \int_eval:n yields a not an    . As a a result, it will require suitable    termination if used in a \TeX-style integer assignment. and a similar statement for dim and skip cases. (BTW, I have some thoughts on muskips, but I think that will keep until we need them in LaTeX3!) -- Joseph Wright