LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:41:32 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From: Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (81 lines)
Frank Mittelbach skrev 2012-06-07 11.54:
> Am 07.06.2012 10:15, schrieb Lars Hellström:
>>>> Other approaches I would find preferable to %<@@=foo> is to use
>>>> %%% lines (as an homage to mft) or explicit commands in the .ins
>>>> file; after all, most source files don't contain code for
>>>> multiple l3-modules.
>>> To be honest I don't like that much but perhaps this is something
>>> one just needs getting used to.
>> Note that these are "/other/ possibilities I would actually find
>> preferable to assignment-guards"; you snipped my preferred realm of
>> solution without comment.
> sorry that was after midnight. You mean
>> FWIW, an alternative way of embedding extra directives into a .dtx
>> file that I have in production is to designate a specific docstrip
>> module as containing code that is directives for the stripper. If one
>> picks the very crude syntax for "directives" that each codeline in
>> the @@ module sets the current @@ replacement then the above could
>> become
>> %<@@>foo
>> %<*pkg>
>> \@@_function:nn % Will be converted to \__foo_function:nn
>> \l_@@_variable_tl % Will be converted to \l__foo_variable_tl
>> %</pkg>
> Maybe I still don't quite understand directives but
> %<@@>foo
> doesn't really look much different to
> %<@@=foo>
> except that I think it is less readable but mileage may vary
> Perhaps you can expand on that once more?

The difference is that in %<@@> the guard is just a guard, guarding some 
piece of code which may perhaps be destined for some target, whereas in 
%<@@=...> it is something different that just happens to be shoehorned into 
the same syntactic realm. If docstrip sees %<@@=foo> it will check if 
"@@=foo" is true for any output file, which it most likely not the case and 
so nothing happens, but still: an incorrect interpretation is applied to the 

If docstrip sees %<@@>foo it checks whether some output file has @@ true, 
and since none has it continues to the next line. My idea is that l3docstrip 
could treat the @@ module (\Module in the sense of doc.sty) somewhat like a 
stream of commands that it will react to immediately rather than write out 
to a file. %<@@>foo is, as I wrote, a rather crude syntax to employ here; 
more flexible syntaxes could be

%<@@> \AtAtReplacement{foo}


%<@@> @@ = foo, sourceencoding = latin1

where the latter (contents is keyval list) illustrates having and setting 
other parameters[*] besides the @@ replacement. Of course, there's no 
particular need to call the docstrip module @@ as well in these cases.

[*] I tend to be very much back and forth regarding whether it would be 
useful to support encoding conversions as part of docstripping. It's 
probably not so much use for pure-TeX projects, but mixed language projects 
could be another matter.

In the case where I'm employing this kind of "directives module" (with 
terminal "docstrip.tcl::catalogue"), I use it as an in-.dtx catalogue of 
things that can be generated from the .dtx. The reasons this became more 
practical than using a traditional .ins file was because (i) the version 
numbers of certain generated files had to be included in the file name (/so/ 
not the (La)TeX way) and (ii) it in this case turned out that the natural 
unit for a source file corresponded to many small generated files.

Lars Hellström