Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thread-Topic: Re: tlp type
thread-index: AckSn37BdofGxYwiQxSrhtPWEuXcfQAAEmYQ
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <8D5403E89293A448A409DDDD1531CE1801951A7F@defrm202.emea.corp.eds.com>
Date:         Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:25:32 +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: Re: tlp type
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  A<48C6AE76.6010001@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

from my perspective? no :-)

Morten obviously felt differently when he did a lot of cleanup on expl3 ... since then I brought that point up but we haven't gotten around really taking it through yet (which we are doing now) 

there is one scenario where the NN veriant is somewhat superior to the Npn variant which is when you have nested definitions as you then need to double the # marks but even then ... I don't feel the advantage being big enough to "polute" :-) the language with alternate versions

language design is horribly complicated and there are still many things that have been badly done or not yet settled within expl3. some things still need to prove themselves, etc ... and I wouldn't be too afraid to allow for some level of experimentation including taking some ideas away again as well.

frank

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project [mailto:LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE] Im Auftrag von Joseph Wright
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2008 19:12
An: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Betreff: Re: AW: tlp type

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