Will Robertson wrote: > 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? Because of possible catcode-troubles? ;) Or maybe such a list might be more useful for a xor operation. cheers Arno