User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13)
            Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D4331D6.7050603@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4D43AEF3.8060804@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:08:51 +0000
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: a question of style
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4D4331D6.7050603@gmx.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 28/01/2011 21:15, Arno Trautmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was wandering what is considered the "nicest" (or, right) way to
> define short macros or aliases. Say, something like
> 
> \ie ⇒ i.\,e.
> 
> As this is ment for document level, I am tempted to use
> \NewDocumentCommand. But this word is longer than the whole code of the
> macro itself, that blows some simple code really up. On the other hand,
> using \def would be very short but is not LaTeX3-ish. \cs_new:Nn doesn't
> let me define something without a : at the end. Or would a \tl_new be a

On the general question, I'd agree with Will that \NewDocumentCommand is
the correct choice. The LaTeX3 syntax is more formalised than LaTeX2e,
which does mean more verboseness in some cases.

On 'things blowing up', can you provide an example?
-- 
Joseph Wright