User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <LISTSERV%200811192230181624.04A3@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>      
            <27990a880811191758x2a29ecb4m33d2dcead1f32093@mail.gmail.com>      
            <859ec5630811200508x17ef357dvc7cf352f5bc1031f@mail.gmail.com>      
            <FFBA056D-6B16-4FB2-AD0F-CD95B6719230@gmail.com>                   
            <492E623B.1090300@morningstar2.co.uk>                      
            <492F05D6.3060103@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <1F3BAD8F-E4CF-4110-8D8E-50B31B47FB22@gmail.com>           
            <492FA9B7.5040802@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <4C0CDB59-A850-4DDF-8F4D-7265ECEC4FBB@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4931BCE6.5060801@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:06:30 +0000
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: \exp_after:NN
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4C0CDB59-A850-4DDF-8F4D-7265ECEC4FBB@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
>>  I think it is then much
>> harder to see what is going on.  So if it were down to me I'd keep the
>> T/F idea, although I'd aim for lower case as these can take braced
>> arguments.
> 
> On the other hand, as exceptions, 'F' and 'T' stand out a little bit
> more than if they were lowercase :)

Yes, I can see why they are upper case.  I was just thinking about the
logic of the situation.

 >>> While we might be able to create a better system than we've got now, is
>>> it worth it?
>>
>> Once again, if it were down to me I'd not make more changes than are
>> really needed.  In that sense, this entire discussion could be somewhat
>> redundant: things already work reasonably well.
> 
> Yes, I agree!
> 
>> I'd still argue that
>> \exp_after:NN is not representative of what it does, so using the
>> current specifiers would prefer \exp_args:NE.  That change at least
>> should be relatively easy.
> 
> Well, I think writing it as \exp_after:wN is "most correct", but in the
> end I hope that we shouldn't really be using it much in expl3 programming.

I've always taken it that :w covered any "odd" argument specifier, i.e.
you don't need :wN as the N in this case is covered by the :w.  For example

\def:Npn \temp:w #1#2 AB #3 {DO STUFF}

doesn't have three argument specifiers.
-- 
Joseph Wright