User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4AE0BFB3.7080905@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <8A015AE0-022B-4462-B8D5-CC1010E49205@gmail.com>           
            <4AE1475B.9070905@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <9F7B8982-D3C7-4678-B260-F6A758971860@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4AE15D7D.6090003@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:38:37 +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 processors
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <9F7B8982-D3C7-4678-B260-F6A758971860@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson wrote:
> Hmmm. Well.
> 
> I suppose it's out of the question to have both options, where
> ">{\processor}" is a shorthand for, say, ">> \l_xparse_arg_toks
> {\processor}". Or have ">*{\processor}" that uses \l_xparse_arg_tl instead.
> 
> Both of these solutions seem to be more like avoiding the issue than
> solving it :) They certainly don't help simplify the situation.

As I said, I'd be happy to avoid the issue entirely if there is a way to
not need a return variable. However, as a processor can do essentially
anything, I can't see a way to avoid it.
--
Joseph Wright