User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812
            Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C58398B6-8915-458C-AF38-F3C82F9342B2@gmail.com>                   
            <4E4FF538.7070601@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <9788A2B7-3E8F-4D2C-A52E-10999BCB59FA@gmail.com>           
            <4E50CD5A.9040304@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <480570CB-1922-4C42-AA23-0DCB88D6A911@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4E50ECDC.7090903@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:32:44 +0100
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: couple of l3keys notes
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <480570CB-1922-4C42-AA23-0DCB88D6A911@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 21/08/2011 10:39, Will Robertson wrote:
>>> I suppose fontspec is a little odd in its keyval approach when viewed through this lens. It's perfectly reasonable (in fontspec!) to write options like
>>>
>>>    [Numbers={OldStyle,Proportional}]
>>
>> To me, this looks like a meta-option of two boolean choices. We don't
>> currently have a 'meta-in-other-paths', so I'd do something like
>>
>>  \keys_define:nn { fontspec }
>>    { Numbers .code:n = \keys_set:nn { fontspec / Numbers } {#1} }
>>  \keys_define:nn { fontspec / Numbers }
>>    {
>>      OldStyle     .bool_set:N = \l_fontspec_Numbers_OldStyle_bool     ,
>>      Proportional .bool_set:N = \l_fontspec_Numbers_Proportional_bool ,
>>    }
>>
>> Perhaps we need something like ".multichoice:", which would do the same
>> as the above automatically. (This is not that disimilar to what .choice:
>> does.)
> 
> This is essentially the approach I was using with xkeyval; I always thought it was a bit clunky (admittedly, less so here). I think I like the idea of .multichoice:, as having both mutually-exclusive and multiple-choice options seems like a fairly sensible breakdown -- does anyone else have any comments on this?

I've added .multichoice: and .multichoices:nn, marked as 'experimental'.
Feedback on these and .choices:nn would be very useful.
-- 
Joseph Wright