Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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>           
            <732A7500-5414-4818-87E3-33CB14463288@gmail.com>
            <4C98435A.1050507@gmx.de> <4C989ACB.5060000@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <353AB782-051D-400D-99B4-E3258AAB4F35@gmail.com>
Date:         Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:35:19 +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:  <4C989ACB.5060000@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 21/09/2010, at 9:15 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> How does the following look? The Boolean expressions are the most basic versions (NOT takes one argument, others take two), but nesting seems to work fine. There is definitely less code to this than the current implementation, so there would be a performance gain.

These don't mix with the old syntax, right? Oh, if you remove your redefinition of \bool_if_p:n then they can intermingle.

The same benchmark I gave earlier gives two more numbers for a single loop over that somewhat complex boolean expression: one with the simplified \bool_if_p:n and one with the more complex implementation of \bool_if_p:n in the current code.

Original: 76盜 (using infix notation)
Current:  55盜 (using functional notation but the current \bool_if_p:n)
Simple:   35盜 (using functional notation with simplified \bool_if_p:n)

I'm not willing to throw away the infix notation, but I think it's worth adding (or, I guess, re-adding) the functional notation for those who want it.

-- Will