@DavidCarlisle it is easy? Do you mean easy to make and hard to keep? (I think this is closest to what I was trying to ask.)

@DavidCarlisle This is very helpful, but it confuses me more. (1) Why something in the second case? (2) What's the significance of different? The first eight are different from the final four?

@AlanMunn ^^ Not careful enough, apparently.

@cfr That user is probably a troll and I flagged that comment as "unfreindly and unkind". But I would like to ask you to do some soul searching. I am not a native English speaker and your comments often seem to me to be written to create controversy. Everyone here respects you, so it may just be my impression, but I can't forget that we lost Christian Hupfer partly because of your behavior.

@cfr no I meant (for full expansion) it's a contract easy to keep, something like \title you can document as saving \@title that produces (fully expands to) the title so such a thing can be used in an e expression but it might in reality define \@title to be {\somesocketcodeulrikeaddedfortagging{title}\textstreaminlanguage{en}{the title}\aonthersocketorhookthingtocleanup}

@cfr and if you use o then it is exactly that sequence that you are passing in so keeping things unchanged menas potentially guaranteeing to keep that internal form exactly/

@cfr sorry that was partially the intention, I tried to make most pf the examples where the variants produce different results. Once you can predict which each of those produce it should be easy to know in general which you want, although as @JosephWright said last night you might only ever want n N e and V

@cfr "why something in the second case" because that is demonstration that o expands just the first token, and just expands it once, and expands it even when it is \protected (because o implies one use of \expandafter applied to the argument) in all the other cases \xxx_foo: is a protected command so does not expand.

@cfr apart from code you want to optimise, in user land stick to n, N, e, and V as @DavidCarlisle noted.

@CarLaTeX As for “unfreindly and unkind”, I partially agree: they are unfreindly because they are, technically friendly. Notice: “:-)”. As for kindness: I can't care less about any anonymous user (especially that user) personally, I do my best effort to be polite to everyone, even if after a certain number of the user's comments directed to me that are gone now, an agenda or, as you expressed this, soul issues of some kind, mildly put, are not improbable.

@AlMa1r an unfriendly comment doesn't get friendly only because you decorate it with a smiley. You were after some petty revenge and made nasty comment and you meant it. And sorry some remarks about anonymous users are silly in view that you are even more anonymous.

@UlrikeFischer I'm afraid your attempt to characterize my previous response as an act of "petty revenge" or a "nasty comment" is simply misguided. Any perceived unfriendliness in my tone is merely a reaction to the provocative nature of the user's own (now gone) remarks. Claiming that my use of a smiley was some kind of superficial attempt at feigned friendliness demonstrates you didn't get the humor.

@UlrikeFischer As for your remarks about anonymous users being "silly" in light of my own anonymity, that displays a rather simplistic understanding of online interactions. Just because I may have a level of anonymity does not negate the validity of my comments or perspective. Perhaps it would be better to engage with the actual LaTeX content, rather than making unfounded assumptions about my motivations or resorting to attacks.

My interactions wish the user have been resolved with him/her directly. No more discussions are necessary, and we can continue with the actual LaTeX work.

Do you want a 'Spirograph'?

(Only TikZ-decorations used.)

can someone vote to re-open tex.stackexchange.com/q/721090/1090

@DavidCarlisle which of the questions do you want to answer?

@Skillmon one that's well hidden, (or perhaps one that I might have asked about that character, if I knew how to ask a question)

@DavidCarlisle I'm curious and trust you, so voted to reopen, though I still don't see much of an answerable question there.

@Skillmon I'm going to post an answer, whether the OP thinks it answers the question, we'll see

Hello, I have a problem giving a title to a question I want to ask in the main forum :( ...I have the draft here (gist.github.com/pablgonz/9451744ba9c27e5e2d2ef5a3e9ab06db)...I accept suggestions

@PabloGonzálezL 404, page not found would be a good title

gist.github.com/pablgonz/9451744ba9c27e5e2d2ef5a3e9ab06db

@PabloGonzálezL ^^ that :-)

@DavidCarlisle Yes, that one :D

@PabloGonzálezL can you vote re-open (see a few comments up)

@DavidCarlisle Listo :)

@PabloGonzálezL thanks, as for a title, titkes don't have to explain the whole problem just something like "combing l3keys and l3prop" woul ddo I think

@Skillmon posted :-)

@DavidCarlisle Upvoted, but it is an ugly symbol...

@DavidCarlisle _What should I modify so that the key wrapper = \__foreach_wrapper:n function works properly?

@mickep QED

@DavidCarlisle Basically I can't get the wrapper key to work...but that title would be pretty simple :(

@DavidCarlisle QED usually looks better.

(Or did you rather mean QED?)

@PabloGonzálezL sure but "wrapper key" doesn't mean anything until you have read the question but the title is supposed to interest people to read that question

@mickep both:-)

@DavidCarlisle Thanks

@DavidCarlisle I think it was the best title I could think of tex.stackexchange.com/q/721126/7832

@PabloGonzálezL \def\foo#1{#1} \bgroup \def\foo#1[something interesting} \egroup \foo{xx}

Any idea why the main tex.sx page has said "This site is currently in read-only mode. ... " for hours now, while the status page says "All systems operational"?

@barbarabeeton I don't see that, site is working fine (I just posted a second or two ago)

@DavidCarlisle -- Hmm. Then maybe it has logged me out. Bummer.

@JosephWright -- I can't seem to get a "live" link to the main TeX site; it says it's in read-only mode, and "login" doesn't work. Can you diagnose? I'm still listed under users. Very confused.

@barbarabeeton Seems there are more people with this problem meta.stackexchange.com/questions/400848/…

@samcarter -- Thanks. One comment says that clearing SE cookies got it working again, but I'm not sure how to do that. Can you help me with that? I'm connected via Firefox.

@barbarabeeton I would try to clear the cache first: reload the page with shift+ctrl+R

If this did not help:

Do you have this little lock icon in the url bar?

If yes, click on "Clear cookies and site data..."

(make sure you know your username and password before clearing the cookies)

@samcarter -- Shift + ctrl + R does nothing useful. No little lock icon. Other than the "read-only" mode warning, nothing else looks unusual. So I still don't know how to get at the cookies.

I have knocked down Firefox by closing all tabs, then brought it up again. No change.

@barbarabeeton cookies survive a restart, you need to clear them explicitly

@DavidCarlisle -- Okay, but how?

mmm, as brute force you could remove all the cache and cookies (this will log you out of all websites, only do this if you know all usernames and passwords): Under the menu "History" -> "Clear recent history" -> select a time frame and check "Cookies" and "Cache"

@barbarabeeton see @samcarter a couple of comments up

@barbarabeeton Better way to clear only the data for stackexchange:

@samcarter -- Have cleared cache and cookies for all today. No change.

Under the menu "Tools" -> "Page Info" -> the last tab labelled "Security" -> "Clear cookies and site data"

(the last one assumes that you are on the site tex.stackexchange.com when you do this)

... and then reload the page

@barbarabeeton ^^^ can you try the method above?

@samcarter -- Finally found a way to zap SE cache and cookies, then reloaded. My password was actually saved by the laptop (not sure how, but it worked). The first thing I was asked was to accept cookies; I chose "necessary only". Back in operation. Many thanks for assistance.

@barbarabeeton Glad to have you back!

@samcarter -- In the process of trying all this, it kicked me out of the chat as well, but I was able to get back in with no problem. Whew!

@barbarabeeton Some time ago, SO changed some things in their infrastructure. Ever since then, reports about such problems seems to be much more frequent on main meta.

@samcarter -- Bah, humbug. But now it's time to go look for something to eat. (No duck. Pickled herring on the menu.)

@samcarter -- Pleasant dreams.