Will Robertson wrote: >> I think it is then much >> harder to see what is going on. So if it were down to me I'd keep the >> T/F idea, although I'd aim for lower case as these can take braced >> arguments. > > On the other hand, as exceptions, 'F' and 'T' stand out a little bit > more than if they were lowercase :) Yes, I can see why they are upper case. I was just thinking about the logic of the situation. >>> While we might be able to create a better system than we've got now, is >>> it worth it? >> >> Once again, if it were down to me I'd not make more changes than are >> really needed. In that sense, this entire discussion could be somewhat >> redundant: things already work reasonably well. > > Yes, I agree! > >> I'd still argue that >> \exp_after:NN is not representative of what it does, so using the >> current specifiers would prefer \exp_args:NE. That change at least >> should be relatively easy. > > Well, I think writing it as \exp_after:wN is "most correct", but in the > end I hope that we shouldn't really be using it much in expl3 programming. I've always taken it that :w covered any "odd" argument specifier, i.e. you don't need :wN as the N in this case is covered by the :w. For example \def:Npn \temp:w #1#2 AB #3 {DO STUFF} doesn't have three argument specifiers. -- Joseph Wright