Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date:
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:11:47 +1030
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--581646373; micalg=sha1;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
|
On 30/01/2009, at 8:37 AM, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> I wonder if we might want the concept of _unsafe functions, ie those
> that do not check but expect the programer to take care of that,
> while by default all others will be safe. In certain applications I
> could see speed/processing reasons for something like this. On the
> other hand one can question how much this matters these days.
>
> opinions?
I wouldn't be unhappy to see these sort of _unsafe functions, but I
would wonder how often they'd be necessary (especially in this case
since padding an argument with quarks and testing if the retrieved
head is \q_no_value or whatever neither breaks expandability nor takes
very long...right?).
Let's keep it in mind when we change the tlist functions.
Will
|
|
|