Am Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:40:23 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright:


> Now while this is okay, the point I guess is that a cleaner interface is
> desirable. One simple approach would be to define \keys_set_known:nn,
> which does the same as \keys_set:nn but (a) raises no error for unknown
> keys and (b) stores unknowns in some defined place. This might lead to
> 
>   \keys_set_known:nn { chess / init } {#1}
>   \keys_set_known:nV { chess / set } \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist
>   \keys_set:nV { chess / fill } \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist
> 
> (I'm imagining \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist contains the keys plus
> values, with \l_keys_unknown_keys_clist just containing the key names.)
> 
> An obvious question then is whether to provide an 'internal' recycle,
> similar to \setrmkeys, or just to provide the list as a variable and
> leave it to the programmer to do the recycling.

I think I would prefer a list, it's more flexible (and easier to
inspect if something goes wrong). 


-- 
Ulrike Fischer