Fri, 6 May 2011 23:42:39 -0400
|
>> \def\quark\quark{\quark}
>
> with error message "Use of \quark doesn't match its definition" if it's ever
> accidentally executed. I *think* this definition still fulfils the use case
> for quarks themselves, but I wonder if it would involve a little too much
> code shuffling to be worth implementing for expl3.
>
> (And it makes it more difficult to peek inside a quark, if that's ever
> necessary.)
>
> Before I forget about this idea, does anyone have any comments on the
> matter?
Hi Will,
if I understand correctly, quarks are meant to work in cases like
\def\foo{#1}
\ifx\foo\quark ... \else ... \fi
This requires quarks to be defined as expanding to themselves.
Or it requires to distinguish between a quark and a token list containing
that quark.
I personally don't use quarks as anything else than delimiters, so any
definition is fine, but I guess that property of quarks is used in
constructions
like
\tl_set:Nn \foo {#1}
\quark_if_recursion_tail_stop:N \foo
or
\prop_get:NnN \foo {key} \bar
\quark_if_no_value:NTF \bar { } { }
This could be solved by altering quark tests, perhaps...?
Regards,
Bruno
|
|
|