On 04/01/2011, at 12:23 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> The resulting documentation might read
> 
> %  Evaluates the \meta{integer expression}, expanding any
> %  integer and token list variables within the \meta{expression}
> %  to their content (without requiring \cs{int_use:N}/\cs{tl_use:N})
> %  and applying the standard mathematical rules. This process requires
> %  two expansions. The result of the calculation is an
> %  \meta{internal integer} which should be treated in the same way
> %  as a \texttt{int} variable, \emph{i.e.}~it must be prefixed
> %  by \cs{int_use:N} unless used in a context which requires an
> %  \meta{integer expression}.
> 
> (with similar statements for \dim_eval:n and \skip_eval:n). Is this sufficiently accurate and clear? Does the entire proposal make sense?

I *think* this is sensible, but I'd be surprised if this wouldn't require some extra changes in some of the internal expl3 functions. The fact that \int_eval:n is expandable is probably exploited in a few places (at least in \int_compare:n, anyway). But I'm sure this isn't an insurmountable problem.

There's not really a sensible alternative for \glueexpr is there? It would be fine to have \number before the \dimexpr version as well, but without consistency between all of them we should definitely (er I think) choose the change that you're suggesting.

-- Will