Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:07:49 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB3H7joo031829 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:07:46 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB3H3BHe020547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:03:11 +0100 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 mB3BGITc005073; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:02:36 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 179166 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:02:36 +0100 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 mB3H2a0h013359 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:02:36 +0100 Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB3H2xVJ020387 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:03:03 +0100 Received: from [139.222.128.187] (helo=ueams04.uea.ac.uk) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L7v4W-0006vN-95 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:59:32 +0000 Received: from [139.222.114.191] by ueams04.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L7v4W-0000A4-7p for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:59:32 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4936B4E9.6010601@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4936BAF4.1020704@morningstar2.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:59:32 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Joseph Wright Subject: Re: \if_meaning:NN To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <4936B4E9.6010601@gmx.de> 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: 03 Dec 2008 17:07:49.0524 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB931540:01C95569] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5488 Arno Trautmann wrote: > why is \if:w, but \if_meaning:NN, \if_cs_meaning:NN and \if_token_eq:NN? > The syntax is the same in all cases – I would have expected :w after all. I suspect that this is on the clean-up list one way or another. Having four functions for one primitive is clearly excessive. I wonder if this one falls into the same category as \exp_after:NN, where :w is more accurate but :NN is true enough of the time to be more helpful. -- Joseph Wright