LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:07:25 +0200
Content-Disposition: inline
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Heiko Oberdiek <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (23 lines)

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

>  > When I first read about expl3 years ago, indeed I was naively  
>  > disappointed that the variants weren't constructed "on the fly". But  
>  > that's obviously impossible.
> obviously impossible is perhaps too strong a word,

How do you want to define macros on the fly, being in expandable
contexts (inside \edef, \write, ...)? Or is the use of these macros
forbidden inside expandable contexts?

Next question, how does the "on the fly" process (if such a thing
might exist) decide to define a macro globally or locally?
Local stuff making global isn't a good idea generally,
thus local definitions remain. But this can be ineffective,
if the yet undefined variant is only called inside a separate group.

Yours sincerely
  Heiko <[log in to unmask]>