Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:38:37 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9KAcUeY014424 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:38:31 +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 m9KAY6wq017299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:34:06 +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 m9JM2B1R025410; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:33:56 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 57070 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:33:56 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m9KAXuh0015768 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:33:56 +0200 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.244]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9KAXoMQ014900 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:33:54 +0200 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so1633031rvf.10 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.170.10 with SMTP id x10mr4703142rvo.140.1224498831383; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.102? (115-166-16-107.ip.adam.com.au [115.166.16.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c20sm10971281rvf.3.2008.10.20.03.33.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) References: <48FC367F.4010509@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Spam-Whitelist: Message-ID: <2F66DF40-E3DA-4831-AF83-19D4B4E2949A@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:03:43 +1030 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Will Robertson Subject: Re: :nFT tests To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <48FC367F.4010509@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: 20 Oct 2008 10:38:37.0730 (UTC) FILETIME=[02A51820:01C932A0] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5403 On 20/10/2008, at 6:12 PM, Joseph Wright wrote: > Reading through l3basics, I see that \def_test_function_new:npn > creates > FT variants of the tests as well as TF, T and F ones. However, the FT > variant doesn't get mentioned anywhere for the tests created. Is this > needed, and if so shouldn't it be mentioned. I noticed that recently too. I think it would be better to remove that variant in the expl3 syntax, since it doesn't seem like it adds much of importance but it adds a bit of obfuscation. I mean, if you're used to true/false code to usually be {...true...}{...false...} then switching that every now and then and only indicating it by FT instead of TF is kinda hard to spot. Anyone else have additional thoughts? W