Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>, 17.09.2010 07:21:30:
>
> \def\foo{...
> \lccode`#1=`\~
! Illegal parameter number in definition of \foo.
And according to my own experience, it must be \lccode`\~=`#1...,
cf. doc.sty \@sverb/\do@noligs and below.
> \lowercase{%
> \def ~{...}
> }
> }
>
> But this requires that ~ is naturally active;
Sure? In my proposal below, ~ is only locally active.
> and that's not necessarily always a good assumption
> (well, in expl3 isn't definitely not).
Arno Trautmann [, 17.09.2010 21:53:19
>
> \define_active_char:Nn <character> {<code>}
>
> which makes the <character> active and assigns the given code to it,
> internally using the code that Will wrote.
\begingroup
\catcode`\~=13
\gdef\define_active_char:Nn#1#2{%
\catcode`#113%
\begingroup
\lccode`\~`#1%
\lowercase{\endgroup \def ~{#2}}%
}
\endgroup
Not tested exactly this way, sorry, but in a so far private package of mine, I have
\providecommand*{\MakeActiveDef}[2]{%
\catcode`#1\active
\begingroup
\lccode`\~`#1%
\lowercase{\endgroup \def ~{#2}}%
}
so (unless another definition of \MakeActiveDef occurs earlier) \MakeActiveDef and \define_active_char:Nn almost have the same meaning (\active vs. 13, in case LaTeX3 won't have \active).
The \endgroup trick here is from doc.sty's \[log in to unmask]
Admittedly \MakeActiveDef has a single instance (though vital) at present, but I have an analogous \MakeActiveLet in niceverb.sty (ctan.org/pkg/nicetext) that has several vital instances (active characters) and has been used in at least one large-scale project.
Actually, I prefer \MakeActiveLet to \MakeActiveDef, \MakeActiveDef only exists because I was (for some minutes) unable to use \MakeActiveLet in that other package. I favor \MakeActiveLet for the case that the meaning of a single active character might be wanted to change, so you store intended meanings as macros \@if@active@i, \@if@active@ii, ... and then switch
\MakeActiveLet\<char>\@if@active@i
somewhere,
\MakeActiveLet\<char>\@if@active@ii
somewhere else ...
Cheers,
Uwe.
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>, 17.09.2010 07:21:30:
>
> \def\foo{...
> \lccode`#1=`\~
! Illegal parameter number in definition of \foo.
And according to my own experience, it must be \lccode`\~=`#1...,
cf. doc.sty \@sverb/\do@noligs and below.
> \lowercase{%
> \def ~{...}
> }
> }
>
> But this requires that ~ is naturally active;
Sure? In my proposal below, ~ is only locally active.
> and that's not necessarily always a good assumption
> (well, in expl3 isn't definitely not).
Arno Trautmann [, 17.09.2010 21:53:19
>
> \define_active_char:Nn <character> {<code>}
>
> which makes the <character> active and assigns the given code to it,
> internally using the code that Will wrote.
\begingroup
\catcode`\~=13
\gdef\define_active_char:Nn#1#2{%
\catcode`#113%
\begingroup
\lccode`\~`#1%
\lowercase{\endgroup \def ~{#2}}%
}
\endgroup
Not tested exactly this way, sorry, but in a so far private package of mine, I have
\providecommand*{\MakeActiveDef}[2]{%
\catcode`#1\active
\begingroup
\lccode`\~`#1%
\lowercase{\endgroup \def ~{#2}}%
}
so (unless another definition of \MakeActiveDef occurs earlier) \MakeActiveDef and \define_active_char:Nn almost have the same meaning (\active vs. 13, in case LaTeX3 won't have \active).
The \endgroup trick here is from doc.sty's \[log in to unmask]
Admittedly \MakeActiveDef has a single instance (though vital) at present, but I have an analogous \MakeActiveLet in niceverb.sty (ctan.org/pkg/nicetext) that has several vital instances (active characters).
Actually, I prefer \MakeActiveLet to \MakeActiveDef, \MakeActiveDef only exists because I was for some minutes unable to use \MakeActiveLet in that other package. I favor \MakeActiveLet for the case that the meaning of a single active character might be wanted to change, so you store intended meanings as macros \@if@active@i, \@if@active@ii, ... and then switch
\MakeActiveLet<char>\@if@active@i
somewhere,
\MakeActiveLet<char>\@if@active@ii
somewhere else ...
Cheers,
Uwe.
|
