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