Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <495160F6.3080306@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.63 (MacPPC)
Message-ID:  <op.umxu72nkjli536@macintosh.local>
Date:         Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:32:16 +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: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_H=F8gholm?= <morten.hoegholm@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: xparse and \group_end:
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <495160F6.3080306@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:06:46 +0100, Joseph Wright wrote:

Hi Joseph,

> Looking at xparse, I see a few:
>
> \group_end:
> \exp_after:NN \use_i:nn

Well, only two I hope (in the same function)!

> and the like inside \if:w statements.  I'd tend to go for
> \group_execute_after:N \use_i:nn, with the \group_end: after the \fi:.
> Just wondering if this makes any practical difference?

Not really. I wrote that piece of code. My personal preference is to not  
use \group_execute_after:N unless it so happens that the group end happens  
outside the function I'm in (such as for boxing operations etc.). Of  
course, if we happen to be looking at an ifcase with 20 cases each needing  
the group end, then I can stray from my principles... :-)


-- 
Morten