Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
References: <4936B4E9.6010601@gmx.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <C34CE9BB-A337-4A86-8E8E-D4CC3385DC86@gmail.com>
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:56:34 +1030
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: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: \if_meaning:NN
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4936B4E9.6010601@gmx.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 04/12/2008, at 3:03 AM, 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.

\if:w corresponds to the primitive \if, whereas \if_meaning:NN and so  
on are \ifx. From TeX by Topic:

> After \if TEX will expand until two unexpandable tokens are  
> obtained, so it is necessary to prefix expandable control sequences  
> and active characters with \noexpand when testing them with \if.

So while \if does take two tokens as input, it will also expands them  
in a weird kind of way; actually, it might even be possible to name it  
\if:ff ! But I'm not really for that idea :)

* * *

Regarding the three different names for \ifx -- yes, that needs to be  
cleaned up; but in the end there still may well be more than one name  
for it. (Well, I'm not opposed to the idea, at least.)

Cheers,
Will