Print

Print


On 12/10/2011 09:06, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>>> Not sure about that. We already have \tl_replace_(once|all):Nnn, which
>>> is what prompted me to use once there. @Joseph (and others), would
>>> \tl_replace_first:Nnn make more sense than _once?
>>
>> For the moment, go with 'once', and we can discuss separately whether it
>> should be once/all or first/all in general. (We've only just changed
>> this from having 'in' in the name, which has caused confusion enough!)
> 
> on first glance "first" feels more precise than once. But I guess this
> is not really true since it requires knowledge that processing is left
> to right. But personally I like "first" better.
> 
> Having said that I agree with Joseph that for now use "once" to keep
> common name structures.

Well, both 'once' and 'first' assume you know something about the
'order' of the variable (otherwise 'once' could mean anything). I'd
agree that 'first' is probably better overall: make the change?
-- 
Joseph Wright