summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKarl Berry <karl@freefriends.org>2012-05-21 23:54:32 +0000
committerKarl Berry <karl@freefriends.org>2012-05-21 23:54:32 +0000
commit95bec054254407d74fec37e47245e6fcbb8a9aff (patch)
tree770d8848811e7a02204401a7a62f86268893301e
parent83ea821e5153a6e36b35e799efb3ef833dd316a4 (diff)
dowith (21may12)
git-svn-id: svn://tug.org/texlive/trunk@26552 c570f23f-e606-0410-a88d-b1316a301751
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdfbin472739 -> 509554 bytes
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt10
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex268
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex5
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS3
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty6
6 files changed, 224 insertions, 68 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf
index cd51fbb17a5..ed121b3ff22 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf
Binary files differ
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt
index 98d2b808e05..04dfe2f6d69 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
*File List*
- dowith.sty 2012/05/14 v0.21 simple list loop (UL)
- dowith.tex 2012/05/18 -- documenting dowith.sty
+ dowith.sty 2012/05/19 v0.21a simple list loop (UL)
+ dowith.tex 2012/05/20 -- documenting dowith.sty
fifinddo.sty 2012/01/20 v0.51 filtering TeX(t) files by TeX (UL)
makedoc.sty 2011/11/19 v0.42 TeX input from *.sty (UL)
niceverb.sty 2011/12/05 v0.44 minimize doc markup (UL)
makedoc.cfg 2012/05/10 -- documentation settings
mdoccorr.cfg 2011/12/03 -- makedoc local typographical corrections
-srcfiles.tex 2012/05/14 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt
- dowith.RLS 2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS
+srcfiles.tex 2012/05/20 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt
+ dowith.RLS 2012/05/20 r0.21d v0.21a discussing other cmds
***********
- List made at 2012/05/18, 12:16
+ List made at 2012/05/20, 21:55
from script file srcfiles.tex
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex
index 66b1dfca0ee..f3c173b5287 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/18 documenting dowith.sty]
+\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/20 documenting dowith.sty]
\title{%%%\kern-\baselineskip
\textsf{\huge dowith.sty}\\---\\Apply Command to
% Elements of Lists without Separators\,---\,%%% 2012/05/14
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
\newcommand*{\codelb}{\code\codeLB}
\newcommand*{\coderb}{\code\codeRB}
\newcommand*{\codesp}{\code\codeSP}
+\newcommand*{\codebd}[1]{\code{\codeLB#1\codeRB}} %% 2012/05/19
%% rm. 2012/05/17b:
% \DeclareRobustCommand*{\code}[1]{%
% \texttt{%
@@ -119,9 +120,6 @@ However, the package can also be used with other formats, just
\begin{verbatim}
\input dowith.sty
\end{verbatim}
-The single commands that the package provides are described
-\hyperref[sec:implement]{below} %% 2012/05/16
-together with their implementation.
% \section{Example}
@@ -139,9 +137,17 @@ together with their implementation.
% or by
% \[`\DoWithAllOf<cmd>{<arg-1><arg-2>\dots<arg-$n$>}'\]
%
+% \pagebreak %% 2012/05/19
\subsection{What It Does With What Lists}
% \subsection{What It Actually Does \dots}
\label{sec:lists-intuit}
+
+The single commands that the package provides are described
+in the \hyperref[sec:implement]{implementation section} below.
+What follows here is some general background about how the
+commands work.
+%% <- moved down from previous section, mod. 2012/05/19
+
The term \qtd{list} may refer to various things and need clarification here.
First of all, we are not referring to \LaTeX\ `list' environments
@@ -243,7 +249,7 @@ What \TeX nically matters is
what happens in ``\TeX's mouth,"\footnote{Cf.~\TTbp.~46.}
as some authors have suggested a metaphor,\footnote{%
Alan Jeffrey: \tugbartref{tb11-2/tb28jeffrey}{``Lists in \TeX's Mouth,"}
- TUGboat Volume~11 No.~2 (1990), pp.~237--245),
+ TUGboat Vol.~11 (1990), No.~2, pp.~237--245),
\urlhttpref{tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-2/tb28jeffrey.pdf}.}
or somewhere deeper.
The 'dowith' package is a tool to control those events
@@ -532,6 +538,7 @@ three-item list of tokens, and a token cannot be a list of
two or more tokens itself(\emph{!?}).
\subsection{Another Notation and the Example's Steps}
+\label{sec:steps} %% 2012/05/20
\begin{smallpar}
To write token lists easier and hopefully easier to read,
I would suggest writing \qtd{.<char>} for the character token
@@ -554,9 +561,13 @@ In ``retrospect," the result of tokenizing \ref{eq:toks} should be
\end{equation}
and the intention is that it works like
\begin{equation}
- \ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{typein}\ntok{a}\,
+ \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\,
+ \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\,
+ \ntok{typein}.\codelb \ntok{a}.\coderb\,
\ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb
\end{equation}
+(The definition of `\DoWith' in Section~\ref{sec:core} indeed adds surrounding braces,
+ if missing.)
However, \TeX\ rather tries to work with as few tokens ahead as possible.
When it finds \ntok{DoWith} and the latter's meaning is the one intended
by 'dowith', it first looks for nothing more than the two arguments
@@ -566,10 +577,10 @@ the token buffer's content will just be\footnote{If you use
instead, the entire token sequence \ref{eq:retro} will appear in the
token buffer ``at once."}
\begin{equation}
- \ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{DoWith}\,
+ \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\,\ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{DoWith}\,
\ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{typein}\,\ntok{fi}
\end{equation}
-Next $\ntok{typein}.&a$ is expanded according to the code for
+Next $\ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb$ is expanded according to the code for
`\typein' in \file{latex.ltx}. Some unexpandable tokens will emerge
and be moved into the ``command buffer," and you should get a screen
message with `a' and a prompt. When you have entered something,
@@ -673,6 +684,45 @@ and ends with a token from $\Chi_2$.\footnote{Again, this may be more
of a draft for a paper, or notes for it, than package documentation.}
\end{smallpar}
+\subsection{Summary: ``Commands" Usable with 'dowith'}
+In the \hyperref[sec:apply]{implementation section,}
+you learn about
+\[`\DoWith<cmd>',\quad `\DoWithAllOf<cmd>',\quad
+ \mbox{and}\quad `\DoWithAllIn<cmd>'.\]
+(\LaTeX\ users may type `{<cmd>}' instead.)
+What <cmd>s are allowed?
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+ \item All \strong{one-parameter macros} <cmd> work this way,
+ unless there are programming mistakes outside 'dowith'
+ (also thinking of arguments that take over control
+ from 'dowith' commands before the argument list is finished).
+ \item \strong{Other one-parameter} ``commands" <cmd> such as
+ \TeX\ \strong{primitives} may work---you must think of
+ the fact that surrounding \emph{braces} are added.\footnote{TODO:
+ in the future, variants not adding braces could be added.}
+ So the \strong{primitives} `\hbox' and `\vbox' work,
+ for instance. `\show' is an example that doesn't work at all,
+ it takes the single starting brace token and then confuses
+ `\DoWith'.
+ \item Some <cmd>s taking \strong{no argument} may make sense, e.g.,
+ for getting
+ \begin{enumerate}
+ \DoWithAllOf{\item}{{apples,}{pears,}{peaches}}
+ \end{enumerate}
+ from
+ \begin{quote}
+ &\begin{enumerate}\\
+ \null\code{~~}&\DoWithAllOf{&\item}{%
+ \codebd{apples,}\codebd{pears,}\codebd{peaches}}\\
+ &\end{enumerate}
+ \end{quote}
+ Recall that `\item' at most takes an \emph{optional} argument.
+ \item <cmd> must \strong{not take more than one} parameter.
+ %% see def. \DoWith
+ A different package will support multi-parameter macros.
+\end{enumerate}
+
% Rather, ``list" is a term from \Wikienref{computer science} here.
% It corresponds to the notion of ``sequence" in mathematics
% and to ``word" with formal languages.
@@ -733,12 +783,12 @@ like the few that are here.\footnote{\ctanpkgref{arrayjobx}
\subsection{Separators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b
Regarding \LaTeX\ macros in `latex.ltx', the basic macro `\DoWith' of
-the present package resembles `\@tfor' very much, which likewise deals
-with lists without separators. By contrast, \LaTeX's `\@for' deals with
+the present package resembles |\@tfor| very much, which likewise deals
+with lists without separators. By contrast, \LaTeX's |\@for| deals with
\emph{comma-separated} lists (such as lists of package options).
With comma-separated lists, a ``string" of characters counts as
an item when it is delimited by commas, or by a comma and the
-list ``border", or spaces may be used as separators additionally.
+list ``border," or spaces may be used as separators additionally.
However, when \LaTeX\ analyzes such lists (in ``\TeX's mouth"),
it uses representations by \emph{character tokens} of them.
@@ -756,18 +806,104 @@ complex mathematical expressions easily (using some assignments)
as well as defining commands according to a pattern from a list.
Those lists are comma-separated.
+\subsection{``For" Loops vs.\ ``Foreach" Loops} %% mv. up 2012/05/20
+What about \ctanpkgref{forloop} (Nick Setzer),
+\ctanpkgref{multido} (Timothy Van Zandt, Rolf Nie\-praksch, Herbert
+Vo\ss), and \ctanpkgref{xfor} (Nicola Talbot)?
+
+'xfor' is just a reimplementation of `\@for'.
+'forloop' and 'multido' are more close to ``real \qtd{for} loops"
+(cf.\ \wikienref{for loop}{\meta{Wikipedia}}).
+Loops of the latter kind go through a certain set as well,
+but such sets rather consist of \emph{numbers} and are exhausted
+by incrementing (or also decrementing) variables
+\wikienref{Loop counter}{(counters).}
+This is essentially not needed
+(neither helpful) %% 2012/05/20
+when a list literally is
+\emph{enumerated}---such loops are distinguished as
+\wikienref{Foreach loop}{``foreach loops."} %% 2012/05/19
+
\subsection{Iterators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b
-A major difference between `\DoWith' and `\@tfor' is that the latter
-uses a ``loop variable" or rather ``\Wikienref{iterator}"
-to which the elements of the list are
-assigned. `\DoWith<cmd>' does not use such a loop variable
+So `\DoWith' and |\@tfor| rather provide ``foreach" loops.
+A major difference between them is that the latter uses a
+\wikienref{For loop}{``loop variable"} or
+%%% rather %% rm. 2012/05/20
+\wikienref{Iterator}{``iterator"} to which the elements
+of the list are assigned.
+`\DoWith<cmd>' does not use such a loop variable
or such assignments and thus is ``expandable" at least when <cmd>
(and the elements, depending on <cmd>) are expandable.
On the other hand, `\@tfor' applies some procedure to the list
elements without needing a \emph{name} for the procedure
(or a \emph{macro} storing the procedure).
+%
+I wondered whether behind \LaTeX's
+`\@tfor' (and `\@for') there was an ``ideological" consideration
+such as ``A loop must have a loop variable!"\pdots
+% However, avoiding usage of a macro name
+% (to store the ``loop body" code) %% 2012/05/18
+% and a macro parameter
+% (to incorporate the list item into the body code) %% 2012/05/18
+% may have been a good reason.
+%% <- 2012/05/19
-``Expandability" is essential especially within \cs{write}.
+%% 2012/05/20:
+Hopefully more clearly on ``loop variable" vs.\ our approach:
+In order to run
+\[<code-before><item><code-after>\]
+on each <item> of a <list>, \emph{we here}
+% \[
+\begin{equation}
+ \mbox{define} \quad `\do' \quad \mbox{as} \quad
+ `#1'\;\to\;`<code-before>#1<code-after>'
+\end{equation}
+% \]
+and then run `\do{<item>}' for each <item> in <list>,\footnote{Cf.~description
+ of procedure in terms of tokens in Section~\ref{sec:steps}.}
+\begin{equation}
+ \mbox{always replacing}\quad `\do{<item>}'\quad \mbox{by}\quad `\do{<item>}\do'.
+\end{equation}
+(`\do' is only an example command that 'dowith' supports especially.)
+% The ``received" approach from ``usual" programming languages,
+% \file{latex.ltx}, and its followers is
+In \file{latex.ltx} instead, we find things like
+% \[
+\begin{equation}
+ \label{eq:tfor}
+ `\@tfor\@tmp:=<list>\do{<code-before>\@tmp<code-after>}'
+\end{equation}
+% \]
+where `\@tmp' is a \emph{macro} that is set to be <item> at each
+iteration of the loop, by
+\begin{equation}
+ `\def\@tmp{<item>}'
+\end{equation}
+within `\@tforloop'. After that,
+\begin{equation}
+ \label{eq:code-tmp-code}
+ `<code-before>\@tmp<code-after>'
+\end{equation}
+from \ref{eq:tfor} is run.---\ref{eq:code-tmp-code} like
+\ref{eq:tfor} is stored in a larger macro. `\do' in \ref{eq:tfor}
+does not act as a macro, it just delimits a macro parameter
+in order give a feeling of some familiar programming structure.
+This organisation of macros is fine when the loop body code
+is only used by the containing macro, while the 'dowith' approach
+to store the ``loop body" in an own macro has been useful when
+the loop body code also is used for different purposes
+or when it has been introduced before I thought of using it
+in a loop.
+% \[\mbox{defining}\;`\@tmp'\;\mbox{as}\;<item>\quad \mbox{and run} \quad
+% `<code-before>\@tmp<code-after>'\]
+% for each <item> in <list>.
+
+Note that this only was an example. In general, <item> may appear
+more than once in the ``loop body."
+
+``Expandability" by \emph{avoiding} something iterating `\def\@tmp{<item>}'
+and doing iteration in \TeX's mouth (`\do' or so must have been defined earlier)
+is essential especially within \cs{write}.
Assignments do not work there. A major motivation for developing
'dowith' developed with the \ctanpkgref{blog} package
that \cs{write}s \acro{HTML} code.
@@ -776,29 +912,6 @@ That place might be called the ``command buffer" to which
the ``expansion processor" moves items from the incoming token buffer
that cannot be expanded (any more).
-\subsection{``For" Loops vs.\ ``Foreach" Loops}
-What about \ctanpkgref{forloop} (Nick Setzer),
-\ctanpkgref{multido} (Timothy Van Zandt, Rolf Nie\-praksch, Herbert
-Vo\ss), and \ctanpkgref{xfor} (Nicola Talbot)?
-
-'xfor' is just a reimplementation of `\@for'.
-'forloop' and 'multido' are more close to ``real \qtd{for} loops"
-(cf.\ \wikienref{for loop}{\meta{Wikipedia}}).
-Loops of the latter kind go through a certain set as well,
-but such sets rather consist of \emph{numbers} and are exhausted
-by incrementing (or also decrementing) variables (counters).
-This is essentially not needed when a list literally is
-\emph{enumerated}---such loops are distinguished as
-``\wikienref{Foreach loop}{foreach loops}." %% W -> w 2012/05/10
-I wondered whether behind \LaTeX's
-`\@tfor' (and `\@for') there was an ``ideological" consideration
-such as ``A loop must have a loop variable!" However,
-avoiding usage of a macro name
-(to store the ``loop body" code) %% 2012/05/18
-and a macro parameter
-(to incorporate the list item into the body code) %% 2012/05/18
-may have been a good reason.
-
\subsection{Separator Macros} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b
Commands like `\DoWith' also could save tokens thinking of list macros
(in \LaTeX/`latex.ltx') that use a \emph{separator macro}
@@ -826,26 +939,36 @@ and then
\subsection{Ye Olde \cs{loop}} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b
%% added 2011/11/03:
There also is |\loop<loop-body>\repeat| in Plain \TeX\ and a
-refined version of it in `latex.ltx'. It is \emph{not} expandable
+refined\footnote{Using Kabelschacht's suggestion, cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:kabel}}
+version of it in `latex.ltx'. It is \emph{not} expandable
since it starts with an assignment for `\body' (Plain \TeX) or
-`\iterate' (`latex.ltx'). As to the programming structure,
-it is so simple and general that you cannot immediately see
-what kind of loops it addresses. However, the applications
-I have seen have been ``for" or (rather) ``while" loops.
-``While" loops can ``emulate" ``for" and ``foreach" loops
-by having the ``incrementation" method or the ``enumeration" method in
-their body. This is quite obvious for ``for" loops, not quite so for
-``foreach" loops; which for practical application (in my view) means
-that neither \LaTeX/\TeX's `\loop' macro nor in general ``while" loops
-is/are very helpful for implementing ``foreach" loops,
-as rather `\DoWith' and similar constructions are.
-The reason for this is (as it seems to me) is that you
-(a human being) can much more easily enumerate (``list")
-the items of a list (you have in mind) than define the \emph{method}
-that (allegedly) is behind your enumeration. \ \meta{Example:}
-\[`\DoWithAllOf{\printsamplearea}{\red\green\blue}'\]
----\emph{how} (according to what ``method"?) did you ``proceed" from
-`\red' to `\green' and from `\green' to `\blue'?
+`\iterate' (`latex.ltx'),
+%% add. 2012/05/20:
+and then some assignments are needed to stop the loop,
+such as incrementing or decrementing a \emph{counter.}
+As to the programming structure, it is very simple and general,
+I think any kind of loop can be implemented by this
+(apart from nested loops). E.g., I realize\footnote{2012-05-20}
+that even a ``foreach" loop could be implemented by managing
+a list macro, e.g., using \LaTeX's internal `\@next'.
+%% rm. 2012/05/20:
+% that you cannot probably
+% what kind of loops it addresses. However, the applications
+% I have seen have been ``for" or (rather) ``while" loops.
+% ``While" loops can ``emulate" ``for" and ``foreach" loops
+% by having the ``incrementation" method or the ``enumeration" method in
+% their body. This is quite obvious for ``for" loops, not quite so for
+% ``foreach" loops; which for practical application (in my view) means
+% that neither \LaTeX/\TeX's `\loop' macro nor in general ``while" loops
+% is/are very helpful for implementing ``foreach" loops,
+% as rather `\DoWith' and similar constructions are.
+% The reason for this is (as it seems to me) is that you
+% (a human being) can much more easily enumerate (``list")
+% the items of a list (you have in mind) than define the \emph{method}
+% that (allegedly) is behind your enumeration. \ \meta{Example:}
+% \[`\DoWithAllOf{\printsamplearea}{\red\green\blue}'\]
+% ---\emph{how} (according to what ``method"?) did you ``proceed" from
+% `\red' to `\green' and from `\green' to `\blue'?
\subsection{Without Iterator and Separators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b
%% 2011/11/07:
@@ -864,11 +987,33 @@ After the ``next" token is stored by the usual \cs{futurelet},
the exception list is searched without using an iterator.
Addition and removal commands are provided as well.
- \pagebreak %% 2012/05/17b
+% \pagebreak %% 2012/05/17b
+% \newpage %% 2012/05/19
\section{Implementation} %% 2012/05/10
\label{sec:implement}
\subsection{Package File Header (Legalese)} %% sub 2012/05/10
\input{dowith.doc}
+
+\section{Ack.: 25 Years of Kabel\-schacht's Method} %% 2012/05/20
+\label{sec:kabel}
+The essential idea of 'dowith' and `\DoWith' is
+\[`\if<code>\expandafter<one-token>\fi'\]
+% Alan Jeffrey: \tugbartref{tb11-2/tb28jeffrey}{``Lists in \TeX's Mouth,"}
+% TUGboat Vol.~11 (1990), No.~2, pp.~237--245),
+% \urlhttpref{tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-2/tb28jeffrey.pdf}.}
+It was described by \textsc{Alois Kabelschacht} as
+\tugbartref{tb08-2/tb18kabel}{``&\expandafter\ vs. &\let\ and &\def\
+ in Conditionals and a Generalization of PLAIN's &\loop"}
+in TUGboat Vol.~8 (1987), No.~2, pp.~184f.\
+(a little more than one column).\foothttpurlref{tug.org/TUGboat/%
+ tb08-2/tb18kabel.pdf}
+See some German biographical notes on Kabelschacht in the
+\wikideref{Benutzer:RolteVolte/Alois_Kabelschacht}{German Wikipedia.}\foothttpurlref{%%
+ de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:RolteVolte/Alois\string_Kabelschacht}
+It seems to me that Knuth didn't note this application of `\expandafter'
+in \TTb. It was then applied in many macros of \file{latex.ltx},
+cf.~\file{source2e.pdf}.
+
\end{document}
VERSION HISTORY
@@ -892,3 +1037,8 @@ VERSION HISTORY
have been r0.21a; storing again,
renaming dir.s ...
2012/05/17bf. r0.21c reducing text ...
+2012/05/19 r0.21d braces and commands applicable
+2012/05/20 corrections, clarifications, reorder;
+ especially examples for `dowith' vs.
+ `\@tfor'; remarks about `\loop' corr.:
+ how to `foreach' ...; Kabelschacht
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex
index 6e2649ba5c6..182905e4c3f 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/05/14 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt]
-\RequirePackage{nicefilelist}
+\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/05/20 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt]
+\RequirePackage[r]{nicefilelist}[2012/05/20]
+%% <- [r] 2012/05/20
\MFfieldtemplate{f-base}{dowithxx}
\RequirePackage{myfilist}
\EmptyFileList %%% [readprov.sty,myfilist.sty]
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS
index da6e1e7b0a9..62006b6b3c2 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
\ProvidesFile{dowith.RLS} %% RELEASE INFO
- [2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS]
+ [2012/05/20 r0.21d v0.21a discussing other cmds ]
+% [2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS]
% [2012/05/14 r0.21 @ fix, .RLS, README/title typo...]
%% <- FAILED
% [2012/05/10 r0.2a corr. generic dir.]
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty
index 346af7f57d6..9b2ce00c4d5 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
\def\filename{dowith} \def\fileinfo{simple list loop (UL)}
-\def\filedate{2012/05/14} \def\fileversion{v0.21}
+\def\filedate{2012/05/19} \def\fileversion{v0.21a}
%% Copyright (C) 2011 Uwe Lueck,
%% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu
%% -- author-maintained in the sense of LPPL below --
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
%%
%% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu
%%
+%% % \pagebreak %% 2012/05/19
%% == Proceeding without \LaTeX ==
%% A little \LaTeX\ as in Bernd Raichle's %% 2011/11/19
%% \CtanPkgRef{ngerman}{ngerman.sty}:
@@ -49,7 +50,9 @@
\fileversion\space \fileinfo] }
%%
%% == Applying a Command == %% 2011/11/07
+%% \label{sec:apply}
%% === Core ===
+%% \label{sec:core}
%% |\DoWith{<cmd>}<list>\StopDoing| applies <cmd> to all elements
%% of <list>. An element of <list> (after tokenizing)
%% may be either a single token or a group `{<balanced>}'.
@@ -193,3 +196,4 @@ v0.2 2011/11/02 simpler, documented
2011/11/19 modified LaTeX supplements
v0.21 2012/05/14 fix for "generic" and `typeoutfileinfo':
@ before ...!
+v0.21a 2012/05/19 \labels sec:apply, sec:core; \pagebreak?