Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <495160FA.8000004@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <9EECA5EE-12A7-4C01-8311-7658BD3E8E04@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.63 (MacPPC)
Message-ID:  <op.umx28toejli536@macintosh.local>
Date:         Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:25:31 +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: \tlist_if_eq:nn
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <9EECA5EE-12A7-4C01-8311-7658BD3E8E04@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:09:51 +0100, Will Robertson wrote:

> I think that's to guard against # tokens. Since arbitrary token lists  
> could be being used in this function, you can't assume (as tlp's usually  
> do) that there won't be any #'s.

Precisely.

> Took me a second to think about this, though, before I realised we're  
> dealing with unrestricted token lists. (Maybe this is a key difference  
> between a tlp and a tlist that I overlooked in my previous discussion  
> for them.) I'll add some text to the documentation for this function.

Restricted is the keyword I think. When tlist functions were invented, the  
idea was for them to work on arbitrary balanced text. In this respect they  
have more in common with toks than tlps which have that restriction of  
which we dare not speak!

toks as implemented in expl3 do not support the <filler> or the implicit  
opening brace and so with this in mind, I'd be more inclined by now to  
group tlist and toks together with tlp being almost the same (but not  
quite).


-- 
Morten