Timeline for LaTeX3 version of expandafter-ifx-csname?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24 at 1:23 | history | edited | cfr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
erroneous `expl3` error (at least non-semantic)
|
| Oct 21 at 17:06 | vote | accept | Vincent | ||
| Oct 18 at 6:41 | comment | added | cfr |
doubtless the code can be rendered more in the spirit of expl3, but it is certainly harder to do that here and I somehow doubt the result would be clearer. is it just to eliminate %s?
|
|
| Oct 18 at 6:33 | comment | added | cfr |
I like expl3, but I have to admit that answering this question leaves me rather more sceptical than I expected. which is not to say it isn't great. but insisting on expl3 here seems ... pointless? dubious? I'm left wondering what the advantage of expl3 versions of these macros is supposed to be. but perhaps I just don't get it. (besides, of course, answering questions demanding expl3 translations, but it seems a lot of trouble for that. it doesn't even provide a consistent syntax as far as I can tell.)
|
|
| Oct 18 at 6:28 | history | answered | cfr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |