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 p7N8ZoAB007473 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:35:51 +0200 Received: (qmail 11443 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2011 08:35:45 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2011 08:35:40 -0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay2.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.210.211] by mx0.gmx.net (mx032) with SMTP; 23 Aug 2011 10:35:40 +0200 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 p7N8XUVE022637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:31 +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 p7MM14Hs001953; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:30 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1592825 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:30 +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 p7N8XU54014160 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:30 +0200 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (cyrus-portal.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.176]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p7N8XTwQ020939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:29 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7N8XTcd030655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:29 +0200 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7N8XGXS022553 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:20 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QvmQ3-0007Wu-VV for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:11 +0200 Received: from p5dd1d5d5.dip.t-dialin.net ([93.209.213.213]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:11 +0200 Received: from news3 by p5dd1d5d5.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:33:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Lines: 33 References: <4E4FF538.7070601@morningstar2.co.uk> <9788A2B7-3E8F-4D2C-A52E-10999BCB59FA@gmail.com> <4E516DF2.4040002@morningstar2.co.uk> <104nbkj0nr84x.dlg@nililand.de> <4E523217.2080408@morningstar2.co.uk> <4E52AA87.6090608@morningstar2.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5dd1d5d5.dip.t-dialin.net User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41de X-Spam-Flag: No X-Envelope-From: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.20 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,L_P0F_Linux,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS Message-ID: <1i25hv8yiyx81$.dlg@nililand.de> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:32:27 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Ulrike Fischer Subject: Re: couple of l3keys notes To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (eXpurgate); Detail=5D7Q89H36p6sJLDpZh614LdjtwLz6vwICd3+q1fjqiqkVvtGdWWu2sB9IoehixNsbm1fW J/L5UydTcEXEhQAA2UFmWDfty6OEoI32NK74qOtEoo1gUwEHsEHE6coFrW8RDb6YgX7zJqjBlgbc A+uHnm3zaaYkExMHiC0g2jer22N79nNPgPXAX5iXljQp3bFu774ed+sYJA=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: 6822 Am Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:14:15 +0100 schrieb Joseph Wright: > I have added the scheme broadly as outlined above to l3keys. Feedback > would be welcome. For example, does 'set_known' convey the appropriate > idea? I don't have enough practice with l3keys to decide this - just starting. But from the language I would expect a \keys_set_known to give an error if it encounters something unknown. Also a command to set keys can set only known keys, so it sound like a pleonasm. Perhaps \keys_set_store or \keys_set_keep would be better? > Show the variable used for storing the 'return' value be fixes, or > flexible as in > > \keys_set_known:nnN { } { } I would prefer a flexible variable. I remember that the fixed XKV@rm from xkeyval had a tendency to get lost when keys itself called setkeys. Another question: pdfkeys has the notion of a "key tree" and "pathes". And you can switch pathes with a command. (.cd I think). Can/should one do something similar with l3keys? I see the subgroups, but I'm not sure if they really are the same conzept. -- Ulrike Fischer