LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

Re: Missing expl3 primitives

From:

Date:

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:20:10 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (33 lines)
 Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Joseph Wright writes: > > > 2) How should the missing three (plus any others) be named. The current > > idea is, I think, something like: > > > > \endlinechar \l_char_endline_int > > \evereof \l_ior_eof_toks > > \scantokens \tlist_rescan:n > > > > Is this logical: are there any other suggestions? > > so for now (see other post) I would only assign \endlinechar and \scantokens > and the names there look fine to me 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). -- Joseph Wright