Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 1 May 2009 11:46:17 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
An essential problem for \in@ are patterns containing `{...}' (with usual
catcodes). The present approach to find a substring <pattern> by defining a
macro that has <pattern> in its parameter text is perfectly unable to deal
with this. At least one of stringstrings, ted, xstring *is* able to do this
because of a very different imlementation -- analyzing tokens one by one
and creating an "internal representation" of the <pattern>. But this is a
heavy machinerybthat should *not* be in the LaTeX kernel -- cf.:
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:07:23 +0200
>From: Uwe Lück <[log in to unmask]>
>At 13:23 27.04.09, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote:
>>Heiko Oberdiek a écrit :
[solutions dealing with unbalanced \if... and #]
>>Anyway, depending on the intended use of \in@, certain resctrictions (such as
>>"no unbalanced \if" or "no # token" or "no \@nil token" are probably
>>acceptable,
>>as long as they are properly documented.
>When I countered "unbalanced \if..." by "#", this rather meant the same.
[...]
>The LaTeX kernel should just provide essential things.
>A perfect bombastic substring detector is not essential.
Cheers,
Uwe.
|
|
|