## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show HTML Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: \int_eval:n versus \dim_eval:n/skip_eval:n [was Re: l3luatex module] Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> Wed, 5 Jan 2011 23:15:16 +0100 text/plain (42 lines) Will Robertson writes:  > On 04/01/2011, at 12:23 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:  >  > > The resulting documentation might read  > >  > > % Evaluates the \meta{integer expression}, expanding any  > > % integer and token list variables within the \meta{expression}  > > % to their content (without requiring \cs{int_use:N}/\cs{tl_use:N})  > > % and applying the standard mathematical rules. This process requires  > > % two expansions. The result of the calculation is an  > > % \meta{internal integer} which should be treated in the same way  > > % as a \texttt{int} variable, \emph{i.e.}~it must be prefixed  > > % by \cs{int_use:N} unless used in a context which requires an  > > % \meta{integer expression}.  > >  > > (with similar statements for \dim_eval:n and \skip_eval:n). Is this  > > sufficiently accurate and clear? Does the entire proposal make sense?  >  > I *think* this is sensible, but I'd be surprised if this wouldn't require  > some extra changes in some of the internal expl3 functions. The fact that  > \int_eval:n is expandable is probably exploited in a few places (at least  > in \int_compare:n, anyway). But I'm sure this isn't an insurmountable  > problem. you can bet that making this non-expandable will break the kernel in many places. I guess this is essential to a lot of code that Morten has written. Perhaps you could take \number out and put it in front in all such places, but whether that is better I wonder. Morten are you listening right now?  > There's not really a sensible alternative for \glueexpr is there? It would  > be fine to have \number before the \dimexpr version as well, but without  > consistency between all of them we should definitely (er I think) choose  > the change that you're suggesting. are we sure the \the isn't the right thing to apply before \glueexpr, ie Joesph's original thought? I rather think that would be better than taking out exansion from \int_eval:n frank