LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:27:10 +0930
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (33 lines)
On 20/09/2010, at 6:41 AM, Arno Trautmann wrote:

> \ExplSyntaxNamesOn
> \bool_if_p:n{
> \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} ||
> \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4}
> }
> \ExplSyntaxNamesOff
> 
> \end{document}
> 
> In SyntaxNames, I get the error
> 
> ! Use of \bool_|_0:w doesn't match its definition.
> <argument>  \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} ||
>                                          \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4}
> l.16 }
> 
> The use of && is successfull in both cases, though. I guess this is
> because the line in ExplSyntax:
> 
> \tex_catcode:D 124=11 \tex_relax:D % vertical bar, other
> 
> is missing in SyntaxNames.
> So is it intended that boolean expressions cannot be fully evaluated in
> SyntaxNames? Or didnít anybody have requested this yet?


I'd like to hear the opinions of the others; I guess this is an edge case to using SyntaxNames. Ideally, perhaps, we should make \bool_if:n more robust so the catcode of | isn't as critical.


-- Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2