User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1)
            Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E95A9C2.6020607@residenset.net>           
            <4E95C086.7060806@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <CANQYN6yk7B1Vuv+KMp6YdRt768-SHzqwNEsptO-9toVrnx+5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4E95FB2C.1060809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:40:12 +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: Church booleans
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <CANQYN6yk7B1Vuv+KMp6YdRt768-SHzqwNEsptO-9toVrnx+5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 12/10/2011 17:59, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> I think that Lars has in the past [1] advocated against the infix
> syntax as being an attempt to impose upon TeX some foreign and not
> very appropriate syntax (please correct me if I misunderstood you). In
> this perspective, providing \and:nn etc. as Lars proposes would be
> much faster than the current approach, and would accomodate trivially
> for non-expandable conditionals.

There was certainly some discussion of infix notation. I have mixed
feelings as using "&&" raises some awkward issues, if nothing else.
Performance-wise, it will always be slower than grabbing arguments, but
on the other hand infix is rather easier to follow.
-- 
Joseph Wright