User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9)
            Gecko/20100907 Lanikai/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
            <732A7500-5414-4818-87E3-33CB14463288@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig6C863957885940B5B1201174"
Message-ID:  <4C98435A.1050507@gmx.de>
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:32:10 +0200
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: Arno Trautmann <Arno.Trautmann@GMX.DE>
Subject: Re: boolean expressions in ExplSyntaxNames
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <732A7500-5414-4818-87E3-33CB14463288@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig6C863957885940B5B1201174
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Will Robertson wrote:
> On 21/09/2010, at 2:50 PM, Arno Trautmann wrote:
>=20
>> 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 fo=
r more than two =91and=92 branches, say.
>>
>> But then you=92re lost at five =94and=93. What about, say
>> \bool_and_p:n {\bool1,...,\booln}
>> i.e. a list of boolean expressions? (Just for the interface, no idea h=
ow
>> to implement this in an efficient way)
>=20
> Why not just use && in the first place?

Because of possible catcode-troubles? ;)
Or maybe such a list might be more useful for a xor operation.

cheers
Arno


--------------enig6C863957885940B5B1201174
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyYQ1oACgkQcYXUw/rerZ6LCACcDlYQ7z/7r1wPtljWwrChTP82
e6QAoJPf4pXjiaHfg4OcnU+eTm5zxaRI
=Qj4y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig6C863957885940B5B1201174--