Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thread-Topic: def:NNn --- was tlp type
thread-index: AckSkM5+Esz02+d2QKmXFsWU5r1NVwAA9vXg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <8D5403E89293A448A409DDDD1531CE1801951A53@defrm202.emea.corp.eds.com>
Date:         Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:04:48 +0200
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: "Mittelbach, Frank" <frank.mittelbach@EDS.COM>
Subject: def:NNn --- was tlp type
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  A<35E353DB-4B58-4FAE-9297-25932A65EC86@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

yeah ... and I would claim that this urge of you goes in completely the wrong direction :-)

my take is that the recent addition of \def:NNn and firends was already a mistake and should be reverted. These functions provide something which at the expl3 level isn't really needed. What is gained from having the alternative between

\def:Npn #1#2#3 {...}

and

\def:NNn 3 {...}

the former is much more general (and on expl3 level that generality is sometimes needed), I would claim it is easier to read as the # signs stand out better than a simple "3".

it is a bit like the newcount newcounter discussion yeaterday ... \def:NNn is kind of an attempt to carry more or less "user-level" functions into the language and they don't belong there

cheers
frank

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE] Im Auftrag von Will Robertson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 17:23
An: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Betreff: Re: tlp type

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