I now have a working implementation (for LaTeX2e) of an argspec based
\NewDocumentCommand, which seems to work very well. The current code
can be found at
http://abel.math.umu.se/~lars/xdoc/xdoc2l3.dtx
http://abel.math.umu.se/~lars/xdoc/xdoc2l3.ins
and an example document demonstrating various argspecs is
http://abel.math.umu.se/~lars/xdoc/xdoc2l3test.dvi
When I started coding this, I though I needed to stick very close to
the final xparse (a somewhat difficult task, considering xparse is
still experimental) -- hence the use of \NewDocumentCommand as command
name -- but as time went on I've drifted more towards the opinion that
it will be sufficient to have a path for manual migration to xparse. In
other words, I'd like the basic features to be available (in the core
or after additional definitions), but it's no big deal if the names and
details in syntax are different.
[What could maybe be an issue for you is that I'm considering splitting
off generic parts of xdoc2 into separate packages -- like shortvrb is
from doc -- and one of these would then be the referenced xdoc2l3:
select LaTeX3(ish) features for xdoc2. If for some reason it would
become popular, then there could be a corresponding pressure for
backward compatibility, regarding for example \IfNoValueTF. ;-) ]
Anyway...
Since I wanted to stay close to the xparse syntax, I stuck with the
idea of having each argument type be denoted by a single character,
followed by zero or more arguments. Since the main new argument type I
introduced was "composition of processors", I chose the syntax
@{<processors>}
for this; @ happens to be the function composition operation (\circ) in
at least Maple (although you'll probably see that it isn't so much the
composition that is going to be characteristic of this specifier type,
so I should probably rethink this). Like functions under composition,
the processors are going to act on the argument in order right to left;
this turned out to simplify the translation of these specifiers into
actual code.
For the individual processors, I again chose the "single character
followed by zero or more arguments" syntax, with the choice of
character being influenced by xparse argument specifiers. Thus there is
for example
O{<default>} Look ahead for a left bracket. If there is one, grab
the entire optional argument and place it within
braces. Otherwise insert <default> within braces.
o Look ahead for a left bracket. If there is one, grab
the entire optional argument and place it within
braces. Otherwise insert \NoValue and skip all
following
processors.
S{<char>} Look ahead for a <char>. If there is one, gobble it
and
insert \BooleanTrue, otherwise insert \BooleanFalse.
g{<assignments>} Make the specified <assignments> (usually to
\catcode or
other parameters relevant for scanning).
With these, I can implement several (existing or proposed) xparse
argument specifiers as mere shorthands for @{...} constructions:
m is @{} (no processors, just grab an argument)
o is @{o}
O{<default>} is @{O{<default>}}
S{<symbol>} is @{S{<symbol>}}
s is @{S{*}}
g{<assignments>} is @{g{<assignments>}}
where the last was implemented by Morten in his mail of December 13,
2007. Listed as above, this doesn't look too impressive, but the fun
begins when one can start composing processors. With only the above,
there aren't all that many combinations that make sense, but one that
can be made is
@{ o g{\@sanitize} }
---first change catcodes (as in the argument of \index), then look for
and grab an optional argument while these catcodes are in effect.
To really see the power of this, it is however necessary to have some
processors which do things to mandatory arguments. Those that there are
implementations for in the code above are:
h convert argument to a "harmless character
sequence", i.e., any problematic character
is encoded as \PrintChar{<ASCII code>}
t argument is \stringed
x{<bool>}{<pre>}{<post>} argument gets expanded; more precisely, if
<bool> is true then
<pre>{<argument>}<post>
gets expanded and otherwise
<pre><argument><post>
gets expanded
.{intrange}{<min>}{<max>} Argument must be some <number>, at least
<min> and at most <max>.
The . here is syntactic sugar for "multiletter processor name follows";
as with xparse specifiers currently, it would be possible to write
{intrange}{<min>}{<max>} instead, but having an unbraced character at
the beginning of a processor specifier makes it easier to read.
With the above, Morten's d specifier (grab and \detokenize) would be a
shorthand for
@{ x{\BooleanTrue}{\detokenize}{} }
and it would have the optional counterpart
@{ x{\BooleanTrue}{\detokenize}{} o }
or it could be combined with catcode changes as
@{ x{\BooleanTrue}{\detokenize}{} g{\catcode`\%=12} }
and of course combined all three, into
@{ x{\BooleanTrue}{\detokenize}{} o g{\catcode`\%=12} }
However, \detokenize isn't satisfactory for my needs; the main problem
being that detokenized material cannot be written to a file (in
particular .idx/.glo file) and then reliably read back. The "h"
processor above employs xdoc2's more robust (and powerful) alternative
of harmless character sequences. The reason I implemented this x
processor in the first place was instead that I had a legacy grabber
\XD@grab@harmless@asmacro which can be specified as
@{
x{\BooleanFalse}{\XD@unbackslash}{\@empty}
h
g{\catcode92=12\MakePrivateLetters}
}
using the above; the x part here removes a leading backslash in the
argument, and the \@empty is there in case the argument was empty.
Additional examples of grabbers in xdoc2 which can be expressed using
this syntax are
\XD@grab@harmless@oarg as @{ho}
\XD@grab@harmless@cs as @{h t
g{\MakePrivateLetters\escapechar=-1}}
(see table in xdoc2l3.dtx).
Finally, I also implemented a argument specifier = which stores the
argument into a macro. Its syntax is
={<control sequence>}{<processors>}
but since the <processors> part is just as for the @ specifier, the
composition turned out to not be what was characteristic for this. I
considered renaming @ to #, but decided not to (for now) as that is
likely to lead to quoting problems in real life usage. And maybe this
list can come up with better names anyway.
It probably wouldn't be hard to convert \DeclareArgumentType from
defining an argument type specifier to defining an argument processor
specifier---concretely one that takes some fancy sort of argument and
converts it to a more regular mandatory argument. IMHO defining a
processor would be much better, at it allows for independent control of
orthogonal aspects of argument processing. I didn't implement anything
in that area though, as I don't have any immediate need for exotic
argument delimiters.
It may however be even better to construct argument specifiers as
defined by \DeclareArgumentType as a composition of two argument
processors: one that looks ahead for an optional argument and one which
actually grabs it. The reason is demonstrated by \testI in the example
document; concretely the problem is that in
\NewDocumentCommand{\test}{ @{ O{world} g{\catcode`\%=12} } }{%
Hello, #1!%
}
\test % Is this a comment?
\relax
the % gets tokenized already when looking for the left bracket
delimiter of the optional argument, and it stays a token even after it
has been determined that there wasn't such an argument.
If instead Q was a processor that does everything of O short of
grabbing the argument, and b was a processor that just grabs a
bracket-delimited argument, then the above specifier could have been
\NewDocumentCommand{\test}{ @{ b g{\catcode`\%=12} Q{world} } }{%
Hello, #1!%
}
instead, for which things work more as expected:
\test % This is a comment!
\test[% This is not a comment!]
Splitting the two provides higher orthogonality (I find the long
argument sequence of \DeclareArgumentType bewildering, and I don't
think it is only a matter of lack of documentation), but it could make
it harder to produce good error messages.
Lars Hellström
|
