Joseph Wright skrev 2015-08-27 22.18:
> On 27/08/2015 19:09, Joseph Wright wrote:
>> 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 :-)
Are you saying xparse handles _matching_ of _nested_ parentheses? Because
that is what I meant that I demonstrated. Using delimited arguments to grab
parentheses without considering how they match against each other is of
course a triviality, but also not useful for the problem considered.
>>> 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.
More fundamentally, I believe it only supports expandable tests. There is no
need for a boolean evaluation logic to require tests to be expandable (and
nor does the logic itself need to be non-expandable).
> BTW, thread you mean starts
> I think the one you mean is
Ah, that is correct.
> P.S. Boolean expressions are Morten's code, not Bruno's :-)
Oh? I seem to recall Bruno posted repeatedly on it this summer, giving the
appearance that he was actively working on precisely that code. My bad, in