Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:37:54 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> > I've been trying to work out if the current expl3 has anything like
> > \patchcmd from etoolbox.
>
> the current expl3 doesn't have something comparible to \patchcmd, not on that
> level of complexity / generality
>
>
> > Will suggested looking at the various \tlp_
> > ... macros. However, even a simple two-part test in this way fails:
> >
> > \documentclass{article}
> > \usepackage{expl3}
> > \CodeStart
> > \cs_if_really_exist:cT{thanks}{
> > \tlp_if_in:NnT\thanks{\footnotemark}{
> > % Do something
> > }
> > \tlp_if_in:NnT\thanks{\footnotetext}{
> > % Also do something
> > }
> > }
> > \CodeStop
> > \begin{document}
> > \end{document}
> >
> > I guess I'm abusing the functions. So have I missed something obvious?
>
> well, one thing obvious is \thanks is not a "tlp" variable is it?
No. The original context of the suggestion was that I couldn't see a
replacement for \g@addto@macro (I may of course have missed it). Here,
using one of the \tlp_put functions does work. So I was extrapolating!
I'm guessing that something like \g@addto@macro will be needed, in the end.
> The \patchcmd does detokenization (loosing catcodes) and then
rebuilds the
> code using "current" catcodes, so it is kind of dangerous in situations
At least in the context I was thinking of, this would not be an issue.
I'd imagine that stuff with funny catcodes wouldn't typically be where a
simple find-and-replace would apply.
I'll stick with redefining \thanks for the moment, then.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|