LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:31:19 +0930
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
On 12/09/2008, at 5:19 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> I'm having a slight issue with the \tlp_put macros.  I'd like to store
> something containing a literal `#1'.

If it's going to need such contents, would it make more sense to use a  
_toks datatype the whole way though?

> \def_long_new:Npn \tlp_put_right:Nn #1#2{
>  \tlp_set:Nn \l_exp_tlp{#2}
>  \tlp_set:Nx #1{\exp_not:o{#1}\exp_not:o{\l_exp_tlp}}
> }
>
> I get an error at the \tlp_set:Nn \l_exp_tlp stage.  I wonder if there
> is a reason not to do:
>
> \def_long_new:Npn \tlp_put_right:Nn #1#2{
>  \tlp_set:Nx #1{\exp_not:o{#1}\exp_not:n{#2}}
> }
>
> which does not suffer from the same issue.

Unless the whole point is to restrict its use in this case, I can't  
see why this isn't a better approach. I suspect it wasn't coded like  
this in the first place because \exp_not:n isn't available without  
eTeX. But I don't  think we should worry about that these days.

Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2