User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4A7921CF.5020803@morningstar2.co.uk>                              
            <4A7A1505.4040604@residenset.net>                      
            <DB76B425-0A88-43B4-9CF0-B92FAF159E37@gmail.com>                   
            <4A7AD930.2090106@residenset.net>           
            <8516B615-51AA-4D90-BB7D-A9E122AA0335@gmail.com>
            <4A816C31.9080401@residenset.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4A817463.8000805@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:38:43 +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: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: xparse
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4A816C31.9080401@residenset.net>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Lars Hellström wrote:
>>     }
>>     \cs_generate_variant:Nn \foo_internal:n {V}
> 
> I thought O was the appropriate variant for expanding a token list
> control sequence?

The re-factor saw us drop "O", and sort-of downgrade "o" (we use it
less). The V specifier lets you write both

\foo_internal:V \l_my_tl  % A macro at the TeX level

and

\foo_internal:V \l_my_toks % A toks at the TeX level

whereas \foo_internal:o would need

\foo_internal:o {\l_my_tl}
\foo_internal:o { \toks_use:N \l_my_toks }

So V is preferred for accessing variables (as the internal structure is
not important), and o is meant for cases which go beyond simply getting
a variable value "out".
-- 
Joseph Wright