## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show HTML Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: Behaviour of \SplitArgument with missing input David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:29:34 +0100 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