User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4A7921CF.5020803@morningstar2.co.uk>                      
            <4A86949D.3090500@morningstar2.co.uk>                      
            <4A886BA8.2000209@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <0417DF73-EC19-4262-B9DF-5C870D47BFCE@gmail.com>           
            <4A89058A.3060506@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <6E237F62-5DA8-4106-B270-F2D6BFBAA0EA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4A895D7B.6030901@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:39:07 +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:  <6E237F62-5DA8-4106-B270-F2D6BFBAA0EA@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
>> Actually, for the moment I've simply not used any space skipping at all.
>>
>> Of course, TeX skips spaces after the command name itself, but for
>> something like:
>>
>> \foo{arg1}[arg2]{arg3}
>>
>> it seemed easier to explain if there is no space skipping at a LaTeX
>> level. If other people disagree it is easy to change.
> 
> Ah, right. Well, it's hard to explain either way, I think; e.g.,
> 
> \foo{a} {b} {c} % works
> \bar{a} [b] {c} % does not
> 
> Personally, I liked xparse-alt's original method, but I'm happy to leave
> it like this until complaints start coming in :)  (Which I'm not sure
> will happen.)

I'm not too fussed either way: it was just easier to code the way it is
done. How do others view this? I can soon put the auto-magic back if
that is the consensus.
-- 
Joseph Wright