Will Robertson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Joseph Wright > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I've been writing a talk about LaTeX3, and something struck me. Why is it >> \exp_after:NN and no \exp_after:NO? > > Or even \exp_args:NO, which saves us a char. (In fact, we could drop > the "s" in all of the \exp_args functions and save us another...) True, \exp_args:NO makes sense. I think that the "s" is handy in some of the cases where more than one argument is altered, so for the sake of one character I'd leave it alone. > I guess \exp_after:NN is an edge-case of the naming scheme. In fact, > it should probably be called \exp_after:ww because in a case like > this: > \foo\expandafter{\bar} > the opening brace doesn't really qualify as a "N" type argument. In the main, with all of the \exp_args functions the average programmer should only need \exp_after:NN for the simple case of getting past a macro, not another token. In general, it seems that the :w functions tend to be ones where there is a better alternative for most scenarios. So I'd be wary of using :ww here. Joseph -- Joseph Wright Tel. 01604 810094 Morning Star Mobile 07974 148180 2 Dowthorpe End Earls Barton Northants NN6 0NH