LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:06:30 +0000
text/plain (38 lines)
Will Robertson wrote:
>>  I think it is then much
>> harder to see what is going on.  So if it were down to me I'd keep the
>> T/F idea, although I'd aim for lower case as these can take braced
>> arguments.
> 
> On the other hand, as exceptions, 'F' and 'T' stand out a little bit
> more than if they were lowercase :)

Yes, I can see why they are upper case.  I was just thinking about the
logic of the situation.

 >>> While we might be able to create a better system than we've got now, is
>>> it worth it?
>>
>> Once again, if it were down to me I'd not make more changes than are
>> really needed.  In that sense, this entire discussion could be somewhat
>> redundant: things already work reasonably well.
> 
> Yes, I agree!
> 
>> I'd still argue that
>> \exp_after:NN is not representative of what it does, so using the
>> current specifiers would prefer \exp_args:NE.  That change at least
>> should be relatively easy.
> 
> Well, I think writing it as \exp_after:wN is "most correct", but in the
> end I hope that we shouldn't really be using it much in expl3 programming.

I've always taken it that :w covered any "odd" argument specifier, i.e.
you don't need :wN as the N in this case is covered by the :w.  For example

\def:Npn \temp:w #1#2 AB #3 {DO STUFF}

doesn't have three argument specifiers.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2