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: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:25:32 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Mittelbach, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (24 lines)
from my perspective? no :-)

Morten obviously felt differently when he did a lot of cleanup on expl3 ... since then I brought that point up but we haven't gotten around really taking it through yet (which we are doing now) 

there is one scenario where the NN veriant is somewhat superior to the Npn variant which is when you have nested definitions as you then need to double the # marks but even then ... I don't feel the advantage being big enough to "polute" :-) the language with alternate versions

language design is horribly complicated and there are still many things that have been badly done or not yet settled within expl3. some things still need to prove themselves, etc ... and I wouldn't be too afraid to allow for some level of experimentation including taking some ideas away again as well.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Joseph Wright
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 19:12
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: AW: tlp type

Mittelbach, Frank wrote:

> i prefer \def:Npn over \def:NNn even for a function without arguments. 

I see the point here.  So should \def:NNn (and \def_new:NNn) be around at all?
Joseph Wright