LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

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 16:13:19 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (23 lines)
Will Robertson wrote:
> 
> \def:Npn \store_something: {Something}
> 
> (I prefer it without the "0" argument spec.)
> 

I was wondering about this.  For macros with no arguments, I was
thinking :NNn has the advantage that the second N is "seen", whereas Npn
has an invisible p argument.

> 
> I think the philosophy is that \def:NNn and friends are designed to
> create "functions", whereas tlps and the like are designed to store "data".
> 
> So I'd choose the latter, but I'd be interested to hear the others'
> opinions.

That was my thought too.  I only noticed after I'd sent xnotes2bib to
CTAN, of course.  Well, I did say "experimental".
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2