Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:28:28 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89FSNMg006184 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:28:24 +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 m89FNPUL009632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:23:25 +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 m88M19kG015958; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:23:21 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 28087 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:23:21 +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 m89FNL3P032512 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:23:21 +0200 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m89FNHPk009463 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:23:20 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f47so1453456pye.14 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.164.1 with SMTP id m1mr9806584rve.266.1220973796396; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.102? ( [219.90.231.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c20sm9974656rvf.3.2008.09.09.08.23.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:23:15 -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> <48C6928F.4060401@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: <35E353DB-4B58-4FAE-9297-25932A65EC86@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:53:11 +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: <48C6928F.4060401@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 15:28:29.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5BF8D30:01C91290] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5254 On 10/09/2008, at 12:43 AM, Joseph Wright wrote: > 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. Yeah; if people start using "\def:NNn 0" a lot, I'd be pretty tempted to define a \def:Nn variant... W