Am Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:40:23 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright: > Now while this is okay, the point I guess is that a cleaner interface is > desirable. One simple approach would be to define \keys_set_known:nn, > which does the same as \keys_set:nn but (a) raises no error for unknown > keys and (b) stores unknowns in some defined place. This might lead to > > \keys_set_known:nn { chess / init } {#1} > \keys_set_known:nV { chess / set } \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist > \keys_set:nV { chess / fill } \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist > > (I'm imagining \l_keys_unknown_keyvals_clist contains the keys plus > values, with \l_keys_unknown_keys_clist just containing the key names.) > > An obvious question then is whether to provide an 'internal' recycle, > similar to \setrmkeys, or just to provide the list as a variable and > leave it to the programmer to do the recycling. I think I would prefer a list, it's more flexible (and easier to inspect if something goes wrong). -- Ulrike Fischer