@Bugbusters Before you need the values.

Help.. What happened to \str_if_eq:xxTF??? I haven't updated since new microtype was released so I could test a before and after. But, now that I updated \str_if_eq:xxTF seems to be missing...

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xparse}
\usepackage{expl3}

\def\SpecialDirName{special}%

\ExplSyntaxOn
\DeclareExpandableDocumentCommand{\GetFileName}{%
	 O{default}%
	 m%
	 m%
	 m%
	}{%
    \str_if_eq:xxTF{#1}{\SpecialDirName}{#4}{#2-#3-#4}%
}%
\ExplSyntaxOff


\begin{document}

\edef\FileName{\GetFileName{a}{b}{c}}
FileName = "\FileName".

\edef\FileName{\GetFileName[special]{a}{b}{c}}
FileName = "\FileName".
\end{document}

The above works fine with TeXLive2011, but not with TeXLive2012 updated as of today.

@PeterGrill We renamed it: it did go to the LaTeX3 list :-)

\str_if_eq_xx:nnTF

It's not x-type expansion

so what is the expl3 way of defining the old syntax to call the new syntax? Or will the usual LaTeX way work?

I don't want to replace them in case I ever need to run with an older version (as I just did to check this MWE).

@PeterGrill \cs_if_exist:NT \str_if_eq_xx:nnTF {\cs_set_eq:NN \str_if_eq:xxTF \str_if_eq_xx:nnTF}

@egreg Thanks that works great. Should this be a question in case others encounter this? Or perhaps it is just me who is clueless about expl3. :-)

Opppsss. I only tested with TeXLive2011 (where that works), but seems to have problem with TeXLive2012

@PeterGrill The best is probably to define your own function based on the existence of the new one.

@egreg I though that was what the code you have did?

@PeterGrill I'm thinking to

\cs_if_exist:NTF \str_if_eq_xx:nnTF
 { \cs_gset_eq:NN \grill_str_if_eq:nnTF \str_if_eq_xx:nnTF }
 { \cs_gset_eq:NN \grill_str_if_eq:nnTF \str_if_eq:xxnnTF }

So you can use \grill_str_if_eq:nnTF and don't pollute your code with deprecated functions

Still get undefined control sequence \str_if_eq:xxTF with TL2012

@PeterGrill Of course.

@egreg No, only use the latest release or 'die'

@JosephWright :-)

@PeterGrill I'm serious: see the siunitx lead-in where I test for expl3 version

@JosephWright I only plan to use the latest release -- but when I run into issues it is helpful to be able to test things with older releases... Just as it was in this case (for me anyway).

@JosephWright You could get a job in Seattle

@DavidCarlisle We don't have the luxury of test phases, etc., nor of separate releases we can realistically support, so we have to accept that the code is still in development while being used by 'real' users

@egreg Have posted a question. You can add the answer there

@JosephWright Oh of course, but my day job is currently being made "interesting" by a company that has more than enough resources for test phases but they still pull the rug out from under your feet and break stuff on "old" platforms at the earliest opportunity to er encourage you to get the latest version.

can anyone try this OP claims it runs but I get an error (see comments) tex.stackexchange.com/questions/109496/…

Ah another class that changed:-) Kurt sorted it out...

@PeterGrill Joseph cheated on us: it's \str_if_eq_x:nnTF with a single x.

@PeterGrill I too tested on TeX Live 2011 and seems to work.

@egreg Still get same issue with newer code. Perhaps I am not doing it correctly

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{xparse}
\usepackage{expl3}

\def\SpecialDirName{special}%

\ExplSyntaxOn
\cs_if_exist:NTF \str_if_eq_x:nnTF
 { \cs_gset_eq:NN \grill_str_if_eq_x:nnTF \str_if_eq_x:nnTF }
 { \cs_gset_eq:NN \grill_str_if_eq_x:nnTF \str_if_eq:xxTF }

\DeclareExpandableDocumentCommand{\GetFileName}{%
	 O{default}%
	 m%
	 m%
	 m%
	}{%
    %\str_if_eq:xxTF{#1}{\SpecialDirName}{#4}{#2-#3-#4}%
	\grill_str_if_eq_xx:nnTF{#1}{\SpecialDirName}{#4}{#2-#3-#4}%
}%
\ExplSyntaxOff


\begin{document}

@PeterGrill You have an xx that should be x: \grill_str_if_eq_x:nnTF{#1}{\SpecialDirName}{#4}{#2-#3-#4}

@PeterGrill Why all those %? In the \ExplSyntaxOn environment they are useless: it's your dream come true!

@egreg Thanks that fixes it... Dream?

@PeterGrill Not to have to terminate lines with %

I leave the % there, otherwise that portion of the code stands out from the rest... Oh, I see :-)

Now to see if it really works in my code, and find out what else has been deprecated :-(

@DavidCarlisle I hope it is okay that I answered the moderncv question? I had to solve such problems several times in last times ...

@Kurt yes of course:-)

@Kurt better you get the rep than that @egreg, he's got far too much already.

@DavidCarlisle I saw you comments after writing my answer (I'm a little bit slow in writing)

@DavidCarlisle LOL; I didn't want to stole the rep from you :-)

The battle is ongoing, let's see:

!!\battle

@Kurt Psmith is on a trip

Bad luck :-(

Martin Scharrer update: 81 to go 100K

@egreg yes I guess he's going to beat me after all:-)

@DavidCarlisle Ah, I didn't saw that.

@egreg rather less now:-)

@egreg Do you like the proofs that have (=>) and (<=) in the following link: jchl.co.uk/maths/Galois.pdf

@kan I use it for marking the two different parts of a proof. Usually not in the proof body. The overall format of those notes is awful.

@DavidCarlisle 51 to go: we'll party tomorrow. :)

@egreg Yeah, agreed. But, the aspect which looked OK to my eyes was: the proof environment. He manages to have (=>) and (<=) outside the proof body (in its margin...) Is that good style?

@kan I simply start the paragraph with ($\Rightarrow$). No indented proofs or statements, in general. The reader loses track of the margin.

@egreg I do it too. So, I should not adapt this one's proof environment. :)

@DavidCarlisle Don't feel bad. I am pretty sure you'll get to 100K before me. :-)

@kan The vertical spaces are terrible: the word "Proof" is hanging from nowhere.

@PauloCereda Welcome back!

@Paulo and Psmith are back!

@egreg Thanks! I miss you guys! :)

!!/100k_club

@PauloCereda Long trip to the big city.

@egreg Yep. :)

@kan I don't think that subsubsections are really necessary. Avoid cliffhangers like "Let's first observe:" followed by a theorem.

@egreg Hah, I appreciate this input. I imagine I have been overdoing it. Thank you.

!!/battle

@egreg Does it feel crowded? esp. near the diagrams?

@kan The one on page 8 definitely needs more room above and below; and the two parts are too far away from each other

@egreg the two parts of the lemma you mean?

@kan In an answer in Math.se a poster claimed to have built an algebraically closed field where –1 is not a square. Really strange example, isn't it? The answer even got upvoted.

@egreg :( Hmph! I really feel bad. If people can go onto do these things, they have no idea what they are doing. I'd suggest that, they stop and get an overall idea.

@kan The part in (1)->(2) with the diagram on the left. It's not clear what the arrows in the middle refer to.

@egreg Oh, I wanted them to indicate that the statement following the arrow is a consequence of the previous line...

@egreg As you might have already noted, the notes is incomplete... I'll typeset this thing fully, surely. So, I'll ask you when I have typeset substantially more from now... :) And, thank you for all your comments.

Trying out KDE... @PauloCereda :)