Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:17:03 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89HGwub012420 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:16:58 +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 m89HCbsU027081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:12:38 +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 m89GZjoi015958; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:12:36 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 28533 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:12:36 +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 m89HCafJ010067 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:12:36 +0200 Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m89HCNRL026655 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:12:27 +0200 Received: from [139.222.128.187] (helo=ueams04.uea.ac.uk) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kd6lL-0002P7-F5 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:12:23 +0100 Received: from [139.222.200.202] by ueams04.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kd6lL-0003z7-Dh for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:12:23 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8D5403E89293A448A409DDDD1531CE1801951A5F@defrm202.emea.corp.eds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <48C6AE76.6010001@morningstar2.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:12:22 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Joseph Wright Subject: Re: AW: tlp type To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <8D5403E89293A448A409DDDD1531CE1801951A5F@defrm202.emea.corp.eds.com> 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 17:17:03.0116 (UTC) FILETIME=[E06DC4C0:01C9129F] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5261 Mittelbach, Frank wrote: > i prefer \def:Npn over \def:NNn even for a function without arguments. I see the point here. So should \def:NNn (and \def_new:NNn) be around at all? -- Joseph Wright