LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced 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:
Bruno Le Floch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 May 2011 23:42:39 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
>> \def\quark\quark{\quark}
>
> with error message "Use of \quark doesn't match its definition" if it's ever
> accidentally executed. I *think* this definition still fulfils the use case
> for quarks themselves, but I wonder if it would involve a little too much
> code shuffling to be worth implementing for expl3.
>
> (And it makes it more difficult to peek inside a quark, if that's ever
> necessary.)
>
> Before I forget about this idea, does anyone have any comments on the
> matter?

Hi Will,

if I understand correctly, quarks are meant to work in cases like

\def\foo{#1}
\ifx\foo\quark  ... \else ... \fi

This requires quarks to be defined as expanding to themselves.
Or it requires to distinguish between a quark and a token list containing
that quark.

I personally don't use quarks as anything else than delimiters, so any
definition is fine, but I guess that property of quarks is used in
constructions
like

\tl_set:Nn \foo {#1}
\quark_if_recursion_tail_stop:N \foo

or

\prop_get:NnN \foo {key} \bar
\quark_if_no_value:NTF \bar { } { }

This could be solved by altering quark tests, perhaps...?

Regards,
Bruno

ATOM RSS1 RSS2