User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48C68A0A.3030006@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <D2776601-4381-4077-B841-6BC1D74C29C9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <48C6928F.4060401@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:13:19 +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: tlp type
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <D2776601-4381-4077-B841-6BC1D74C29C9@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
> 
> \def:Npn \store_something: {Something}
> 
> (I prefer it without the "0" argument spec.)
> 

I was wondering about this.  For macros with no arguments, I was
thinking :NNn has the advantage that the second N is "seen", whereas Npn
has an invisible p argument.

> 
> 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.

That was my thought too.  I only noticed after I'd sent xnotes2bib to
CTAN, of course.  Well, I did say "experimental".
-- 
Joseph Wright