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: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:29:34 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: NAG
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (26 lines)
On 29/04/2013 09:54, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've had a couple of reports recently of an inconsistency in the way
> \SplitArgument is documented compared to how it is implemented. In the
> current CTAN release, something like
>
>    \DeclareDocumentCommand { \foo }
>      { > { \SplitArgument { 2 } { ; } } m }
>      { \showtokens {#1} }
>    ...
>    \foo{bar}
>
> gives
>
>      > {bar}{-NoValue-}{-NoValue-}.
>      \foo code #1->\showtokens {#1}

historically I think splitting arguments comes from things like 
\cline{1-2}  but is it really needed now? It might be more natural to 
just split the argument as a clist then missing separators can be 
distinguished from empty items by the length of the list.


David

ATOM RSS1 RSS2