LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:08:31 +1030
text/plain (933 bytes) , smime.p7s (2446 bytes)
On 12/03/2009, at 11:47 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> A "philosophical" question.  To make various bits of code clearer, I'm
> in the habit of splitting self-contained parts off.  Sometimes, this
> results in functions which take no arguments.  Under the LaTeX3  
> scheme,
> is it "acceptable" to have functions of no arguments rather than tlps
> containing the data?

To be hasty (and not particularly experienced :) ) I would say yes,  
this is a more than acceptable idea. I see no problem (quite the  
contrary) with functions that say "initialise the local variables  
we're going to use" or "detect the mode that we're currently in",  
which do not require any information (besides the current state of  
things) passed to them.

I think of tlp's more as data containers, which could even contain  
functions to call in certain circumstances, but which wouldn't be used  
in general to store entire "subroutines" for repeated execution.