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 p4FBHox0023890 for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:17:51 +0200 Received: (qmail 19207 invoked by alias); 15 May 2011 11:17:45 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 May 2011 11:17:44 -0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.100.212] by mx0.gmx.net (mx103) with SMTP; 15 May 2011 13:17:44 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p4FBFSSZ022251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:28 +0200 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 p4EM15Of020093; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:27 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1208197 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:27 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p4FBFR0P025487 for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:27 +0200 Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (mail-pz0-f49.google.com [209.85.210.49]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p4FBFKIT022214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:25 +0200 Received: by pzk28 with SMTP id 28so2683380pzk.22 for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 04:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.43.34 with SMTP id t2mr4911159pbl.286.1305458120023; Sun, 15 May 2011 04:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.102] (219-90-217-42.ip.adam.com.au [219.90.217.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5sm2593256pbs.11.2011.05.15.04.15.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 May 2011 04:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) References: <4DCA93CC.5020605@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Spam-Whitelist: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id p4FBFR0P025488 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:45:14 +0930 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Will Robertson Subject: Re: xparse and space skipping To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <4DCA93CC.5020605@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (eXpurgate); Detail=5D7Q89H36p4yCuwxJv6KY0FCZRnwZ+13I34SENBwjBsSarVXQDP6wH1y18j2jZFI3Opo/ Py5DrqBiWNHFv1i9+C1XWwe1yqltauRWTDdZCGGwajSkEjL9BNKC3pAjNuQx2x1RfiUtP2DRsX9Z xONXuyDXUrrJOSSCjyspaLkepv3te7Qp8+bpVImDuX6oPg3t+2hrAKTK/KrA4TiXFXsOg==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: 6746 On 11/05/2011, at 11:19 PM, Joseph Wright wrote: > So looking again at this I think we should 'follow TeX', and be > consistent in skipping spaces in all cases. I don't like the fact that > at present there is a somewhat convoluted explanation of the behaviour > in the xparse documentation: this tends to show up when something is not > really correct! (At the same time, the implementation would be slightly > easier to follow if this change was made.) > > Does this seem reasonable? I'm not sure I always agree that a slightly longer explanation means that we've taken the wrong approach. If we are to change anything here I think we'd have to go back to the old approach of having a specifier to denote when spaces should not be skipped. Since I do think the current behaviour is desirable in at least some cases! But then we'd be in the situation again of having an inconsistent interface. My current feeling would be [*] to leave things as they are and perhaps add a note to the documentation "feedback is requested on this user interface; at the present time we believe this is the best option [explaining this reasoning somewhere] but we acknowledge we might not be right!". Having said all that I don't think there's one correct choice to make here, and the simplicity argument is a strong one -- so I'm somewhat on the fence. -- Will [*] I see I'm starting to speak like Joseph :)