Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
References: <B05A09B5-1199-466E-A812-679D76C15C73@gmail.com>
            <4E76ECA9.7090809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <5A0E41A1-0D4D-419C-984F-6EDA8992A6C9@gmail.com>
Date:         Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:01:26 +0930
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: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: \msg_four_spaces:
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4E76ECA9.7090809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 19/09/2011, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> We did have \msg_space:, \msg_two_spaces: and \msg_four_spaces:. The
> argument for getting rid of them in that form was that they were not
> really functions, so using \c_space_tl seemed equally valid.

Yes, I agree \msg_space: doesn't need to exist when \c_space_tl does.

> With the implementation we have now, you can use "\ " for a space, but
> there is an argument for a semantic 'code indent'. So \msg_indent: would
> seem to be reasonable.

Oh yes, `\ \ \ \ ` would be pretty good. (My brain thought they'd be concatenated for some reason and I didn't try it. Distracted by other work, I suppose.)

I'm probably happy to leave things as they are for now. In fact, any sort of "indent" function would be better if it respected the line-wrapping routine and that's more work than it's worth right now. I'll table this thought in the Github wiki.

Thanks,
-- Will