LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:40:12 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
On 12/10/2011 17:59, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> I think that Lars has in the past [1] advocated against the infix
> syntax as being an attempt to impose upon TeX some foreign and not
> very appropriate syntax (please correct me if I misunderstood you). In
> this perspective, providing \and:nn etc. as Lars proposes would be
> much faster than the current approach, and would accomodate trivially
> for non-expandable conditionals.

There was certainly some discussion of infix notation. I have mixed
feelings as using "&&" raises some awkward issues, if nothing else.
Performance-wise, it will always be slower than grabbing arguments, but
on the other hand infix is rather easier to follow.
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2