User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.14)
            Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D731368.1060701@gmx.de> <4D7335FC.3050007@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <19827.15373.437917.416434@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4D735487.8070809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:31:51 +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: \coffin_new:c ?
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <19827.15373.437917.416434@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 06/03/2011 07:47, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>  > It's not 100 clear yet, but the initial plan at least for me is that
>  > coffins are a design-level construct. That means that \NewCoffin is the
>  > way to produce coffins - \coffin_new:N is there mainly to be wrapped up
>  > in a design-level function.
>  > 
>  > Perhaps you might illustrate what you're doing at a 'concept' level?
> 
> in my opinion it should be there, so I would call it an oversight. 
> 
> On document level, you are right, \NewCoffin should be enough but if you build
> a package that involves coffins it is possible that the names of that coffin
> are build from other structures, so that you wan to use :c to produce them

When I rewrote the coffins code, I originally included "c" variants, but
decided to leave them out pending seeing whether they were needed. I've
no objection to them, I was just trying to avoid 'variant overkill'.
Note that if you allow "c"-type names, then it's not just \coffin_new:N
that needs variants. All of the 'code-level interface' functions should
be done for consistency. This is the work of 5 minutes: shall I make the
change?
-- 
Joseph Wright