User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328
            Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <517E353C.5050701@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <517E3D7E.3060808@nag.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:29:34 +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: David Carlisle <davidc@NAG.CO.UK>
Organization: NAG
Subject: Re: Behaviour of \SplitArgument with missing input
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <517E353C.5050701@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 29/04/2013 09:54, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've had a couple of reports recently of an inconsistency in the way
> \SplitArgument is documented compared to how it is implemented. In the
> current CTAN release, something like
>
>    \DeclareDocumentCommand { \foo }
>      { > { \SplitArgument { 2 } { ; } } m }
>      { \showtokens {#1} }
>    ...
>    \foo{bar}
>
> gives
>
>      > {bar}{-NoValue-}{-NoValue-}.
>      \foo code #1->\showtokens {#1}

historically I think splitting arguments comes from things like 
\cline{1-2}  but is it really needed now? It might be more natural to 
just split the argument as a clist then missing separators can be 
distinguished from empty items by the length of the list.


David