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)