Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with SMTP id p07AJRrx003366 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:19:29 +0100 Received: (qmail 22239 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2011 10:19:22 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Jan 2011 10:19:22 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx071) with SMTP; 07 Jan 2011 11:19:22 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p07ACNfJ027491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:24 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p079VHN4013383; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:13 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 775909 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:13 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p07ACDDu007655 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:13 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p07AC9Ef027384 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:12 +0100 Received: from morse.mittelbach-online.de (p54A83FC5.dip.t-dialin.net [84.168.63.197]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LvzLR-1QOhZV3eIP-017nef; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:12:09 +0100 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id BC81D72A21; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:05 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <4D22486F.5000506@morningstar2.co.uk> <19748.47294.93978.108113@morse.mittelbach-online.de> <4D24EC4B.1080307@morningstar2.co.uk> <19748.64800.644068.699289@morse.mittelbach-online.de> <4D262B9E.9020605@morningstar2.co.uk> <0C233110-56B2-40DA-A920-156175A1218D@gmail.com> <4D26CB92.4090204@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:crWKc0ypTN4JFv5j2eCj2AwHhBOOWxdvEbUu7Tw4m3F N4FgBzJvILPihtVXj+2H/wIe41ktbOv9joZ+sTskVJx89edXFf XN+Ooq2Jd/D/JnktURRLiSIcbuXuaFnEpD+T6QVV9sbs4+kA1u LROO39Q/4j3aDo78CTSCmnbxMCN0Jm95S6NmuOXL0fX8I9wsZp mLcYsS0PfEH0MVYBgpdKg== X-Spam-Whitelist-Provider: Message-ID: <19750.59125.320087.195928@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:12:05 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: \box_if_empty:N(TF) To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <4D26CB92.4090204@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam); Detail=5D7Q89H36p77e5KAPs1l6v/Sb97LojnDtMgfETrECMLUO9erHzOJe+OynZRhvlGqb5A0X bbiCt2rAnnct/NAlbHMvoAL6GY+23tB3khNK7avqRsgMMVBwlWgrgcyEiCy6eQ7DbfhonniFyqTI PpJNA==V1; X-Resent-By: Forwarder X-Resent-For: rainer.schoepf@gmx.net X-Resent-To: rainer@rainer-schoepf.de Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6548 Joseph Wright writes: > On 07/01/2011 06:32, Will Robertson wrote: > > I prefer "void" or "clear" instead of "unset" (all work as noun and verb), but I agree with changing the names. I don't mind the existence of "\box_use_clear:N" (or whatever) but I can see your argument against it. Is there any non-neglible performance decrease from writing > > > > \box_use:N \l_tmpa_box > > \box_clear:N \l_tmpa_box > > > > over > > > > \box_use_clear:N \l_tmpa_box > > > > ? If not, I'd be happy to drop the use_clear function for the reason of consistency, as you note. > > Over all, I think 'void' is possible still the best choice. It suggests > more than just 'empty', which 'clear' does not. So \box_void:N, > \box_if_void:N(TF), etc., seem best. it's your language guys, but for me the preferred order would be unset as it is the opposite of "set" void clear I think is bad as it implies to me empty and it such a register isn't empty is is no longer "set" so that it can be used Even though no longer of such importance I still think that "unsetting" or "voiding" a box register after use if no longer needed is a good ground rule, so to clearly support that I would keep \box_use_unset:N or \box_use_void:N available, but as Will mentioned writing it out as two function calls is not too difficult. So I don't mind much (by the way there is also \hbox_unpack_... etc which should get the same treatment, whatever it is). frank