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 >>]

Joseph Wright writes:
> The reason I'm interested in \everyeof as well is for using \scantokens
> in a context such as:
>
> \def\tempa#1{%
>   \begingroup
>     % Some catcode changes
>     \everyeof{\noexpand}%
>     \endlinechar-1\relax
>     \edef\tempb{\scantokens{#1}}%
>   \expandafter\endgroup
>   \expandafter\def\expandafter\tempc\expandafter{\tempb}%
> }
>
> which fails without the \everyeof setting. That I know of there is no
> way to "bundle up" the various components, so without access to
> \everyeof, \scantokens is not much use (at least to me).

sure. well for now I would suggest to use \tex_every_eof:D knowing quite well
you do something you shouldn't (not that you could help it at this point in
time:-) and with the knowledge that once we come up with an interface in
l3file or else you may have to redo that bit of code.

My point is that I don't want to saction the use of the primitive by giving it
a name

but what this also tells me is that we have to perhaps even retract on
providing \scantokens as a primitive, but instead provide a scantokens
interface which sets up its environment carefully (by, for example, copying
a specific toks (e.g., \l_every_rescan_end_toks to \tex_every_eof:D prior to
calling \etex_scantokens:D) rather than providing the primitive for direct
use.

frank