User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48CA1F27.2040902@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <5957A3EB-39BD-4A98-99D7-70129F99CDC0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <48CA438F.5070708@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:25:19 +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_put ...
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <5957A3EB-39BD-4A98-99D7-70129F99CDC0@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
 > If it's going to need such contents, would it make more sense to use a
> _toks datatype the whole way though?

Okay, I have "redone the exercise" in this way.

>> I wonder if there
>> is a reason not to do:
>>
>> \def_long_new:Npn \tlp_put_right:Nn #1#2{
>>  \tlp_set:Nx #1{\exp_not:o{#1}\exp_not:n{#2}}
>> }
>>
>> which does not suffer from the same issue.
> 
> Unless the whole point is to restrict its use in this case, I can't see
> why this isn't a better approach. I suspect it wasn't coded like this in
> the first place because \exp_not:n isn't available without eTeX. But I
> don't  think we should worry about that these days.

That was my guess too.
-- 
Joseph Wright