Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:11:20 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89FBFVe005045 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:11:15 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m89F5rtv009548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:05:53 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m88M19is015958; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:05:52 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 27983 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:05:52 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m89F5pwW031251 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:05:51 +0200 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.182]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m89F5lWX009286 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:05:51 +0200 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j5so1680380wah.18 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.125.4 with SMTP id x4mr9796243rvc.229.1220972746341; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.102? ( [219.90.231.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b8sm10032799rvf.4.2008.09.09.08.05.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) References: <48C68A0A.3030006@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:35:41 +0930 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Will Robertson Subject: Re: tlp type To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <48C68A0A.3030006@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2008 15:11:20.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[50A42340:01C9128E] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5252 On 10/09/2008, at 12:06 AM, Joseph Wright wrote: > Hello, > > A "philosophy" question. For storing values that will be used "as > is", > normally one would do \def\storesomething{Something}. In the LaTeX3 > model, I can choose either > > \def:NNn \store_something: 0 {Something} or \def:Npn \store_something: {Something} (I prefer it without the "0" argument spec.) > or > > \tlp_new:N \l_store_something_tlp > \tlp_set:Nn \l_store_something_tlp {Something} > > and get the same result, function-wise. Is the later closer to the > model proposed, or should I stick with the former? I think the philosophy is that \def:NNn and friends are designed to create "functions", whereas tlps and the like are designed to store "data". So I'd choose the latter, but I'd be interested to hear the others' opinions. Will