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.
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
Let's keep it in mind when we change the tlist functions.