MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19in0asqvv02p$.dlg@nililand.de>           
            <554CF61C.6070700@latex-project.org>
            <55520F64.4020008@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <55521488.3080806@latex-project.org>
Date:         Tue, 12 May 2015 16:56:08 +0200
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: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: TeX capacity exceeded, with \prop_map_inline
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <55520F64.4020008@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

Am 12.05.2015 um 16:34 schrieb Joseph Wright:

>
> Probably we should add something: as Ulrike says, at the very least
> \prop_show should complain.

we probably should, but I don't think that \prop_show:N would be the 
right place. True, some other "prop" functions do seem to work if you 
start from a "c" generated name rather than with \prop_new:N but this is 
at best by chance: they are defective and who knows what other defects 
are hidden or appear if further "prop" functions are being written.

So despite the time penalty I think a quick check always that an 
argument that should be a "prop" is not equal to \relax is safer.

frank