Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:44:52 +1030 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 31/12/2008, at 7:29 AM, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> So I personally would go KISS and offer
> functions that limit the accepted input to balanced token lists
> without #.
Another random thought: since users "shouldn't" be defining new macros
within the body of their documents, I think LaTeX3 should have
something like the equivalent of
\AtBeginDocument{\catcode`\#=12}
Of course, there could be markup to allow them to write more
definitions mid-document if they really want/need.
* * *
But that's rather separate from what we've been talking about :)
It seems to me that the two most plausible options (if we do anything)
are to change tlp->tlist or tlist->toks depending on how robust we can
make the inline functions. Can we be guaranteed that all (what is
currently now) \tlist_ functions can deal gracefully with # tokens?
Alternative: use tlp->tlist regardless and say that tlist functions
that take inline arguments are generally more robust with # tokens
than saving data to a tlist pointer. (Since I kind of like the =tlist=
name. Wishy-washy, I know.)
* * *
Also, is there a way that the naming of the \token_ module can be
incorporated into our naming scheme above? Or is that stretching
things too far? (My current feeling is that it is.)
Will
|
|
|