Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:33:25 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Will Robertson wrote:
> Quite the opposite! \scantokens can be really helpful.
> I might suggest a name like
> \token_rescan:n
> or maybe
> \tlist_rescan:n
> Opinions?
Based on things like \expandafter = \exp_after:NN, I'd imagine
\token_scan:n or \token_rescan:n make most sense. (I think \tlist...
incorrectly describes the function).
> The other two I'm not so sure where they should go. I'd *probably*
> recommend defining your own wrappers around the :D versions and then we
> can work out how to proceed from there.
I think that, if you want to use these you probably want access to the
raw (e)-TeX primitives. However, the expl3 documentation make it pretty
clear that outside of the LaTeX3 team no-one should use anything ending
:D. So there needs to be a non-D name for each one. For \everyeof, I
guess this is (somewhat) related to I/O, so perhaps:
\l_ior_eof_toks
(based on \ior_eof:NTF, etc.).
\endlinechar is more tricky, clearly an _int, perhaps in tokens or chars?
\l_token_endline_int
\l_char_endline_int
seem possible.
I did think if there was a way to wrap both up along with \scantokens to
avoid the entire issue of naming the other parts. But I don't think
that is possible.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|