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: \@ifdefinable

From:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:41:42 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (34 lines)
 Matthew Swift <[log in to unmask]>: >TeX macro parameters and their TeX syntax may be >"in-reality-not-so-advanced" to multi-year veterans of TeX...   It was not really intended as polemics, but we have discussed syntaxes going beyond that of standard TeX parameters, both such that depend on extensions of TeX itself and can be programmed within TeX. For example, I suggested a variation    \define?c1{def1}%           ?c2{def2}%            ...              {defn} That in succession checks the character chi within the parameter text pari, and if there is a match, it expands to defi, otherwise it tries the next pattern. This can be implemented in TeX with under some condition, which I do not know if it is prudent to assume.   So I would suggest a terminology, "standard TeX definitions" for the TeX style definitions, and perhaps "standard LaTeX definition" for the LaTeX \newfoo[7]... style definitions. -- Otherwise I think it is clear that an user interface should hide away the technical stuff, but I do not feel it is difficult for me to write say     \define#1#2#3{...} instead of     \define[3]{...} Perhaps the latter is easier for casual users.   But not being allowed to use parameter texts in LaTeX definitions kills off some of the creativity possible with TeX.   Hans Aberg                   * Email: Hans Aberg                   * AMS member listing: