User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48C4D4F5.3060503@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <859ec5630809080413t37278f82wb0dfcb4468374183@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <48C50B55.4090607@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:24:05 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: \cs:c
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <859ec5630809080413t37278f82wb0dfcb4468374183@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Morten Høgholm wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Joseph Wright
> <joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
>> Another quesition, I'm afraid.  In the main, I get the impression :w
>> macros should be avoided if there is an equivalent :c or :n one.
>> However, although there is \chk_exist_cs:c, the is no mention of \cs:c
>> (= \@nameuse).  I'd have thought this would be a good idea, or is there
>> a reason for avoiding this?
> 
> There is \cs_use:c (in l3basics I believe).

Ah yes.  This does not show up in the copy of source3.pdf I compiled
from the SVN over the weekend.  Is it documented?
-- 
Joseph Wright