LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

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

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

Print Reply
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:11:43 +0100
text/plain (21 lines)
On 21/07/2017 17:07, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> JW> Date:         Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:59:33 +0100
> JW> From:         Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
> JW> In the latest CTAN update, \bool_if:n(TF) has been made *greedy*:
> JW> \bool_lazy_... functions are available for lazy evaluation. (The latter
> JW> have a different input syntax which does not suffer from the issue that
> JW> affects \bool_if:n(TF).) Any code which still assumes lazy evaluation
> JW> for \bool_if:n(TF) will therefore need adjustment.
> Would not it be a little gentler to the developers to keep
> \bool_if... lazy and introduce a new family \bool_greedy...?

The problem would then have remained: there are certain forms of input
which with a lazy \bool_if:n(TF) break the parsing and lead to low-level
errors. Having a permanently-broken \bool_if:n(TF) was on-balance not
something we felt was the best solution.