Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
References: <54167155.9070304@clear.net.nz>
            <541693B5.2000103@morningstar2.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <04AB1E15-D7E1-4395-B2BD-046C3DEC0846@gmail.com>
Date:         Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:10:21 +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: Generalising \cs_generate_variant
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <541693B5.2000103@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 15 Sep 2014, at 4:52 pm, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.=
UK> wrote:

> I don't remember any technical reasons for not doing this: I guess
> primarily we've not needed it often enough.

I think this was discussed back when I first came on board years ago, and=
 naming complexity / interface simplicity relegated it to the chopping ro=
om floor. This was probably before we even had selection of conditions in=
 the {p,TF,T,F} style argument.


> Probably this would go into \prg_... as it's only applicable to
> conditionals (we have \prg_new_eq_conditional:NNn and
> \prg_set_eq_conditional:NNn). I guess something like
> \prg_generate_conditional_variant:Nnn would be an appropriate name.

I think another complaint I had at the time was that =93\prg_generate_con=
ditional_variant:Nnn=94 is a pretty big mouthful of a command, but that=92=
s minor :) I don=92t think we could come up with a shorter and better nam=
e but any ideas?

Cheers,
Will