On 19/09/2011, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> We did have \msg_space:, \msg_two_spaces: and \msg_four_spaces:. The
> argument for getting rid of them in that form was that they were not
> really functions, so using \c_space_tl seemed equally valid.
Yes, I agree \msg_space: doesn't need to exist when \c_space_tl does.
> With the implementation we have now, you can use "\ " for a space, but
> there is an argument for a semantic 'code indent'. So \msg_indent: would
> seem to be reasonable.
Oh yes, `\ \ \ \ ` would be pretty good. (My brain thought they'd be concatenated for some reason and I didn't try it. Distracted by other work, I suppose.)
I'm probably happy to leave things as they are for now. In fact, any sort of "indent" function would be better if it respected the line-wrapping routine and that's more work than it's worth right now. I'll table this thought in the Github wiki.