Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:06:51 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 16/02/2011 16:04, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>> If it's as good as it seems then it allows all sorts of expandable things,
>> such as optional argument parsing and expandable nested mapping.
>
> We had a short discussion with Joseph about optional argument parsing.
> The obvious constraint is that the last argument must be mandatory, so
> we can just look for its opening delimiter. Then it is in principle
> possible, but argument specifications like {oom} become quite tricky,
> since #{ has to be used when grabbing each of these arguments. I
> haven't looked at the implementation of xparse in detail, though.
In this discussion I did say that whether fully-expandable arguments
should be limited to 'om'-like cases was an open question. If it's more
sensible over all then I'm happy with this: that part of xparse is very
much 'experimental'.
> I've put the code for \fullyexpand online for those interested, as
> well as a very primitive macro expander. (
> http://users.aims.ac.za/~bruno/LaTeX/ULcase/ )
Another thing to read after work :-)
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|