Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:56:34 +1030 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 04/12/2008, at 3:03 AM, Arno Trautmann wrote:
> why is \if:w, but \if_meaning:NN, \if_cs_meaning:NN and
> \if_token_eq:NN?
> The syntax is the same in all cases – I would have expected :w after
> all.
\if:w corresponds to the primitive \if, whereas \if_meaning:NN and so
on are \ifx. From TeX by Topic:
> After \if TEX will expand until two unexpandable tokens are
> obtained, so it is necessary to prefix expandable control sequences
> and active characters with \noexpand when testing them with \if.
So while \if does take two tokens as input, it will also expands them
in a weird kind of way; actually, it might even be possible to name it
\if:ff ! But I'm not really for that idea :)
* * *
Regarding the three different names for \ifx -- yes, that needs to be
cleaned up; but in the end there still may well be more than one name
for it. (Well, I'm not opposed to the idea, at least.)
Cheers,
Will
|
|
|