On 21/09/2010, at 2:50 PM, Arno Trautmann wrote:

> Will Robertson wrote:
>> On 20/09/2010, at 11:27 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> 
>>> is there actually any need for the :nnn etc versions?
>> 
>> Not sure, is there?
>> They seem natural to me; better than nesting multiple :nn commands for more than two ‘and’ branches, say.
> 
> But then you’re lost at five ”and“. What about, say
> \bool_and_p:n {\bool1,...,\booln}
> i.e. a list of boolean expressions? (Just for the interface, no idea how
> to implement this in an efficient way)

Why not just use && in the first place?

-- Will