LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:49:38 +0100
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: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
On 15/06/2011 14:14, Joseph Wright wrote:
> There are a number of ways we could handle this. One way would be to
> have a \DeclareBookmarkableCommand (or similar) macro, which would work
> in the form
> 
>    \DeclareBookmarkableCommand\foo{m}
>      {Standard code}
>      {Bookmark code}

One issue this approach would raise is whether the two implementations
(expandable and non-expandable) should be tied together. You can imagine
using the \DeclareDocumentCommandImplemenation idea to separate out
expandable and protected versions of a macro without needing to create
both at the same time.

One approach might then be

  \DeclareBookmarkCommand \foo { m } { Bookmark code }

which checks for an existing \foo, checks that the arg. spec. is the
same, then does what Heiko suggested and sets things up to allow a
selection of route.
--
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2