Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
References: <4C967C9B.5010706@gmx.de>           
            <71ED7A5B-DE11-45D9-9785-95A1DC795080@gmail.com>           
            <4C9724B4.3010301@residenset.net>           
            <AA223041-D9B8-4EE4-BF8A-5782FAC2078A@gmail.com>           
            <D6A512C4-5F40-4178-A72F-0D0612DC9A14@gmail.com>           
            <19607.26705.947540.499705@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
            <D8A49385-C6F5-4601-97B5-EC2E0501BEF8@gmail.com>
            <4C9840AB.4050805@gmx.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <732A7500-5414-4818-87E3-33CB14463288@gmail.com>
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:57:23 +0930
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: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: boolean expressions in ExplSyntaxNames
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4C9840AB.4050805@gmx.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 21/09/2010, at 2:50 PM, Arno Trautmann wrote:

> Will Robertson wrote:
>> On 20/09/2010, at 11:27 PM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> 
>>> is there actually any need for the :nnn etc versions?
>> 
>> Not sure, is there?
>> They seem natural to me; better than nesting multiple :nn commands for more than two ‘and’ branches, say.
> 
> But then you’re lost at five ”and“. What about, say
> \bool_and_p:n {\bool1,...,\booln}
> i.e. a list of boolean expressions? (Just for the interface, no idea how
> to implement this in an efficient way)

Why not just use && in the first place?

-- Will