LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:40:12 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (15 lines)
On 12/10/2011 17:59, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> I think that Lars has in the past [1] advocated against the infix
> syntax as being an attempt to impose upon TeX some foreign and not
> very appropriate syntax (please correct me if I misunderstood you). In
> this perspective, providing \and:nn etc. as Lars proposes would be
> much faster than the current approach, and would accomodate trivially
> for non-expandable conditionals.

There was certainly some discussion of infix notation. I have mixed
feelings as using "&&" raises some awkward issues, if nothing else.
Performance-wise, it will always be slower than grabbing arguments, but
on the other hand infix is rather easier to follow.
Joseph Wright