LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:09:58 +0100
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Catcode changes
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
From:
Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
On 27/08/2015 18:28, Lars Hellström wrote:
> Bruno Le Floch skrev 2015-08-27 12.34:
>> That's much harder.  Catcode changes are probably warranted in this
>> case, since teaching TeX to nest parentheses in this way is tough.
> 
> I seem to recall that I did demonstrate how to do that -- have TeX match
> parentheses in an expression, using delimited arguments rather than
> catcode changes -- in a mail to this very list several years ago... Yes,
> it was on 2011-10-19 and the subject was "Re: Church booleans".

We do the same in xparse :-)

> PS: I maintain that that approach to evaluating infix boolean
> expressions is far superior to what is currently offered in LaTeX3, but
> Bruno just seems to *love* his &&, with all its shortcomings. ;-)

Will remind myself: as has been noted there is an issue with clearing up
certain tokens with the current lazy evaluation method.

Joseph

ATOM RSS1 RSS2