summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKarl Berry <karl@freefriends.org>2009-04-20 22:50:28 +0000
committerKarl Berry <karl@freefriends.org>2009-04-20 22:50:28 +0000
commitee53eac199e12fb91859fd18a43dd506ff75e3a9 (patch)
treeebe1417122388e1022b9ab77f0af3e687a7c061f /Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty
parented190dcc699e8dbd39a0f38c26e80270b7e4df92 (diff)
nicetext update (20apr09)
git-svn-id: svn://tug.org/texlive/trunk@12766 c570f23f-e606-0410-a88d-b1316a301751
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty676
1 files changed, 676 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..1f03ae4c4ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/nicetext/fifinddo.sty
@@ -0,0 +1,676 @@
+%% Macro package `fifinddo.sty' for LaTeX2e, %% FIDO, FIND!
+%% copyright (C) 2009 Uwe L\"uck,
+%% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu
+%% -- author-maintained in the sense of LPPL below --
+%% for processing tex(t) files
+%% (checking, filtering, converting, substituting, expanding, ...)
+
+\def\fileversion{0.3} \def\filedate{2009/04/15}
+
+%% This file can be redistributed and/or modified under
+%% the terms of the LaTeX Project Public License; either
+%% version 1.3a of the License, or any later version.
+%% The latest version of this license is in
+%%
+%% http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
+%%
+%% We did our best to help you, but there is NO WARRANTY.
+%% Please report bugs, problems, and suggestions via
+%%
+%% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu
+%%
+%% For the full documentation, look for `fifinddo.pdf'.
+%% Its source starts in `fifinddo.tex'.
+%%
+%% === Format and package version ===
+\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}[1994/12/01]
+% 1994/12/01: \newcommand* etc.
+\ProvidesPackage{fifinddo}[\filedate\space v\fileversion\space
+ filtering TeX(t) files by TeX (UL)]
+%%
+%% === Category codes ===
+%%
+%% We use the ``underscore'' as ``compound identifier.''
+\catcode`\_=11 %% underscore used in control words
+%%
+%% |\MakeOther| is a synonym for `\@makeother', needed for matching
+%% special characters from the input file. It is exemplified by
+%% |\fdPatternCodes| which is the default of |\PatternCodes|.
+%% The latter is used in setup macros for reading patterns.
+\@ifundefined{MakeOther}{\let\MakeOther\@makeother}{}
+\newcommand*{\fdPatternCodes}{\MakeOther\&\MakeOther\$}
+\newcommand*{\PatternCodes}{} \let\PatternCodes\fdPatternCodes
+ %% TODO adding/removing
+%% It would be bad to have `\MakeOther\%' and `\MakeOther\ ' here in
+%% that this may have unexpected, weird effects with arguments of
+%% setup macros. Therefore neither `\dospecials' nor `\@sanitize' are
+%% used. Curly braces remain untouched as default delimiters in setup
+%% macros. For matching them, you must use `\MakeOther\{' and
+%% `\MakeOther' in your `\PatternCodes', or |\Delimiters| to introduce
+%% new ones at the same time, e.g., `\Delimiters\[\]':
+\newcommand*{\Delimiters}[2]{%
+ \MakeOther\{\MakeOther\}\catcode`#1=1\catcode`#2=2\relax}
+%% For replacing strings or for defining other strings of ``other''
+%% characters by `\edef', you can use some \LaTeX\ constructs---here
+%% are copies |\PercentChar| and |\BackslashChar| of them
+%% (do you need more?):
+\newcommand*{\PercentChar}{} \let\PercentChar\@percentchar
+\newcommand*{\BackslashChar}{} \let\BackslashChar\@backslashcar
+%%
+%% == File handling ==
+\newwrite\result_file %% or write to \@mainaux!?
+%% |\ResultFile{<output>}| opens (and empties) a file
+%% <output> to be written into.
+\newcommand*{\ResultFile}[1]{%
+ \def\result_file_name{#1}%
+ \immediate\openout\result_file=#1}
+%% |\WriteResult{<balanced>}| writes a <balanced> line into
+%% <output> (or more lines with `^^J').
+\newcommand*{\WriteResult}[1]{%
+ \immediate\write\result_file{#1}}
+%% |\WriteProvides| writes a `\ProvidesFile' command to the
+%% opened <output> file. This should be used when <output>
+%% is made as \LaTeXe\ input.
+\newcommand*{\WriteProvides}{%
+ \WriteResult{%
+ \string\ProvidesFile{\result_file_name}%
+ [\the\year/\two@digits\month/\two@digits\day\space
+ automatically generated with fifinddo.sty]}}%
+%% |\ProcessFileWith{<input>}{<loop-body>}| opens a file <input>
+%% and runs a loop on its lines the main body of which is <loop-body>.
+%% When it starts, a new line of <input> is stored as macro
+%% |\fdInputLine|.
+\newcommand*{\ProcessFileWith}[2]{%
+ \openin\@inputcheck=#1%
+% \ifeof\@inputcheck %% bad `exists?' test
+% \PackageError{fifinddo}{File `#1' not here}%
+% {Mistyped?}%
+% \else
+ \global\c@fdInputLine=\z@ %% line counter reset
+ \begingroup
+ \MakeOther\{\MakeOther\}\@sanitize
+ %% from docstrip.tex:
+ % \MakeOther\^^A\MakeOther\^^K%% irrelevant, not LaTeX
+ \endlinechar\m@ne
+ %% <- cf. TeXbook "extended keyboards" up-/downarrow
+ %% -> "math specials", cf. "space specials"
+ \MakeOther\^^I% ASCII horizontal tab -- guessed!? ^^L!?
+ \loop \ifeof\@inputcheck \else
+ \read\@inputcheck to \fdInputLine
+ \ignorespaces #2%
+ \repeat
+ \endgroup
+% \fi
+ \closein\@inputcheck}
+%% |\CloseResultFile| closes <output>.
+\newcommand*{\CloseResultFile}{\immediate\closeout\result_file}
+%% Peter Wilson's 'newfile' provides more powerful file handling.
+%% % <- TODO relevant? 2009/04/12
+%%
+%% \pagebreak %% TODO move theory to fifinddo.tex 2009/04/12
+%% == Basic handling of substring conditionals ==
+%% \label{sec:theory}
+%% === ``Substring Theory'' ===
+%% \begin{flushright}\it
+%% I wished I could study string theory,\\
+%% but I only could study substring theory.
+%% \end{flushright}
+%% A \TeX\ macro, say, `\find' whose parameter text
+%% (cf. \TeX book p.~203)
+%% starts with `#1<pattern>#2&' stops \TeX\ with an error if it does
+%% not find <pattern> and then `&'. Otherwise we have a situation
+%% `\find<split1><pattern><split2>&', and `\find' reads <split1> as
+%% #1 and <split2> as #2. An important point to note is that <split1>
+%% will not contain <pattern>, but possibly <pattern> has more
+%% occurrences in <split2>. In this sense, `\find' uses the
+%% \emph{first} occurrence of <pattern> it finds in order to delimit #1.
+%% Finding the \emph{last} occurrence of <pattern> therefore needs a
+%% special idea.
+%%
+%% In order to use `\find' for a test whether <pattern> is in
+%% <target>, we build a ``sandbox'' |\find<sand>&|, where <sand>
+%% contains <target> \emph{and additionally} <pattern>---as a
+%% ``dummy;'' so `&' delimits the search and `\find' finds
+%% <pattern> either in <target> or somewhere else before `&'.
+%%
+%% Consider the simple sandbox |\find<target><pattern>&|.
+%% We can test #1 and #2 on being empty by `\ifx$#1$' and `\ifx$#2$'.
+%% If #2 is empty, <pattern> is \emph{not} in <target>.
+%% If #1 is empty at the same time, <target> is empty.
+%% If #1 is empty and #2 is not, <pattern> \emph{starts} <target>!
+%% This can be used to implement
+%% Wikipedia-like lists %% TODO 2009/04/11
+%% and to distinguish package code from comments in 'makedoc'.
+%%
+%% If #2 is \emph{not} empty, <pattern> occurs in <target>---or this once
+%% was \emph{thought}, some time in developping the present package,
+%% as well as in the version of 'substr.sty' marked
+%% `2005-11-29',\footnote{\hspace{1sp}'substr' does not change
+%% category codes
+%% % as 'fifinddo' does
+%% and uses \cs{@nil} as delimiter instead of our &&.} try
+%% \[`\IfSubStringInString{<str1><str2><str1>}{<str1><str2>}{YES}{NO}'\]
+%% which works \emph{verbatim} as well as considering <str1> and
+%% <str2> \emph{placeholders}, e.g., for
+%% \begin{center}
+%% `\IfSubStringInString{day after day}{day after }{YES}{NO}'\footnote{%
+%% Likewise \texttt{t\string\^ete-\string\`a-t\string\^te} ...}\\
+%% `\IfSubStringInString{AMSTERDAM}{AMSTERD}{YES}{NO}'\\
+%% `\IfSubStringInString{TORONTO}{TORON}{YES}{NO}'\\
+%% `\IfSubStringInString{bonbon}{bon}{YES}{NO}'\footnote{%
+%% Polynesian: `aku aku', `rongorongo', `wiki wiki' ...}\\
+%% `\IfSubStringInString{bonobo}{bono}{YES}{NO}'
+%% (an ape)
+%% \end{center}
+%% or `\IfSubStringInString{ionization}{ionizat}{YES}{NO}'.\footnote{%
+%% Read 'substr.sty' or try ``normal'' things to convince yourself
+%% that the syntax indeed is
+%% &\IfSubStringInString{<pattern>}{<target>}{<yes>}{<no>}.}
+%% Same with \LaTeX's internal `\in@':
+%% \[`\makeatletter \in@{bonbon}{bon}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi \makeatother'\]
+%% %% \makeatletter \in@{bonbon}{bon}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi \makeatother
+%% %% \IfSubStringInString{ionization}{ionizat}{YES}{NO}
+%%
+%% In general, the previous approach \emph{fails if and exactly if}
+%% <pattern> has a \emph{period} $p$---less than its length---in the sense of that
+%% the $p$th token to the right or left of each token in <pattern>
+%% is the \emph{same} token.
+%% `AMSTERDAM' has a period 8, `day after day' 10, `bonbon' 3, `bonobo' 4.
+%% There is a counterexample <target> of length $p$ iff
+%% <pattern> has period $p$, namely the first substring of <pattern>
+%% having length $p$. If the length of <pattern> exceeds a multiple
+%% $mp$ of its period, the first $mp$ tokens of <pattern> form
+%% a counterexample <target>.
+%%
+%% Therefore, a sandbox must have something between <target> and
+%% <pattern>. We choose |\find<target>~<pattern>$&| as standard.
+%% The `$' will be used as an argument delimiter to get rid of the dummy
+%% <pattern> in <split2>, as well as to decide whether the match was
+%% in <target> or in the dummy part of the sandbox.
+%% The `$' can be replaced by another tilde `~' in order to
+%% test whether <target> \emph{ends} on a <pattern>, defining a macro
+%% like `\findatend' whose parameter text starts with `#1<pattern>~#2&'.
+%%
+%% === Plan for proceeding ===
+%% When we check a file for several patterns, we seem to need
+%% \emph{two} macros for each pattern: one that has the pattern
+%% in its parameter text and one that stores the pattern for building
+%% the sandbox.\footnote{If it were for the pattern only, the parsing
+%% macro might suffice and the macro calling it might extract the
+%% pattern from a ``dummy expansion.'' Somewhat too much for me now;
+%% on the other hand the calling macro also hands some ``current''
+%% informations to the parsing macro---oh, even this could be
+%% handled by a general ``calling'' macro \dots}
+%% %% TODO 2009/04/15
+%% We use a separate \emph{``name space''} for each of
+%% both kinds. The parsing macro and the macro building the sandbox
+%% will have a common \emph{``identifier''} by which the user or
+%% programmer calls them. Actually, she will usually (first) call
+%% the sandbox box builder. The sandbox builder calls the parsing
+%% macro. When \emph{all} occurrences of a pattern in the target are
+%% looked for, the parser may call itself.
+%%
+%% Actually, the parsing macro will execute certain actions
+%% depending on what it finds in the sandbox, so we call it a
+%% \emph{``substring conditional''}. It may read additional arguments
+%% after the sandbox that store information gathered before.
+%% This is especially useful for designing \emph{``expandable''}
+%% chains (sequences) of conditionals where macros cannot store information in
+%% macros. The macro setting up the sandbox will initialize such
+%% extra arguments at the same time.
+%%
+%% It may be more efficient \emph{not} to use the following setup
+%% macros but to type the macros yourself, just using the following
+%% as templates. The setup macros are especially useful with patterns
+%% that contain ``special characters,'' as when you are looking for
+%% lines that might be package comments.
+%%
+%% === Set up conditionals ===
+%% `substr_cond' is the ``name space'' for substring conditionals.
+%% A colon separates it from \emph{``job identifiers''} in the actual
+%% macro names.
+\def\substr_cond{substr_cond:}
+%% |\MakeSubstringConditional{<id>}[<changes>]{<pattern>}|
+%% starts the definition of a conditional with \emph{identifier} <id>
+%% and pattern <pattern>. <changes> optionally add commands to
+%% be executed after `\PatternCodes' in a local group.
+%% It may be more safe to redefine `\PatternCodes' instead.
+\newcommand*{\MakeSubstringConditional}{%
+ \afterassignment\mk_substr_cond_san \def\cond_id}
+\newcommand*{\mk_substr_cond_san}[1][]{%
+ \begingroup \PatternCodes #1\mk_substr_cond}
+ %% #1 more changes
+%% `\begingroup' |\mk_substr_cond{<pattern>}|
+%% can be directly called by other programmer setup commands when
+%% `\cond_id' and <pattern> have been read.
+\def\mk_substr_cond #1{%% #1 pattern string
+ \endgroup \@namedef{\substr_cond \cond_id}##1#1##2&}
+%% This really is not \LaTeX. We are starting defining a macro
+%% `\substr_cond:<id>' in primitive \TeX\ with `\def' in the form
+%% \[`\def\substr_cond:<id>#1<pattern>#2&'\]
+%% where `\csname' etc. render \lq`:<id>'\rq\ part of the macro name.
+%% The user or programmer macro produces the part of the definition
+%% until the delimiter `&' to match the sandbox. You have to add
+%% (maybe) #3 etc. and the `{<definition text>}'
+%% just as with primitive \TeX.
+%%
+%% === Set up sandboxes ===
+%% There was a \emph{question:} will we rather see
+%% \emph{string macros} or \emph{strings from macro arguments}?
+%% The input file content always comes
+%% as `\fdInputLine' first, so we at least \emph{must account} for
+%% the possibility of string macros as input.
+%%
+%% One easy way to apply several checks and substitutions to
+%% `\fdInputLine' before the result is written to <output> is
+%% `\let\OutputString\fdInputLine' and then let `\OutputString'
+%% be to what each job refers as \emph{its}
+%% input and output, finally `\WriteResult{\OutputString}'.
+%% (`\fdInputLine' might better not be touched, it could be used
+%% for a final test whether any change applied for some message on
+%% screen, even with an entirely expandable chain of actions.)
+%% This way each job, indeed each recursive substitution of a single
+%% string must start with expanding `\OutputString'.
+%%
+%% On the other hand, there is the idea of \emph{``expandable''
+%% chains of substitutions}. We may, e.g., define a macro, say,
+%% `\manysubstitutions{<macro-name>}', such that
+%% `\WriteResult{\manysubstitutions{\fdInputLine}}'
+%% writes to <output> the result of applying many expandable
+%% substitutions to `\fdInputLine'.
+%% Such a macro `\manysubstitutions' may read `\fdInputLine',
+%% but it must not redefine any macros.
+%% Instead, the substitution macros it calls must read results
+%% of previous substitutions as \emph{arguments}.
+%%
+%% Another aspect:
+%% the order of substitutions should be easy to
+%% change. Therefore expanding of string macros should rather be
+%% controlled by the way a job is \emph{called}, not right here
+%% at the \emph{definition} of the job. For this reason,
+%% a variant of the sandbox builder expanding some macro was given up.
+
+%% `setup_substr_cond' is the name space for macros that build
+%% sandboxes and initialize arguments for conditional macros.
+\def\setup_substr_cond{setup_substr_cond:}
+%% |\MakeSetupSubstringCondition{<id>}[<changes>]{<pattern>}{<more-args>}|
+%% % <- TODO allow `%' and ` ' for breaking code lines.
+%% ---same <id>, <changes>, <pattern> as for
+%% `\MakeSubstringConditional' (this is bad, there may be
+%% |\MakeSubstringConditional*{<more-args>}|)---creates the
+%% % <- TODO: store args in \Make...Conditional
+%% corresponding sandbox, by default without tilde wrap.
+%% <more-args> may contain `{#1}' to store the string that was tested,
+%% also `{<id>}' for calling repetitions and `{<pattern>}' for screen
+%% or log informations.
+\newcommand*{\MakeSetupSubstringCondition}{%
+ \afterassignment\mk_setup_substr_cond_san \def\cond_id}
+\newcommand*{\mk_setup_substr_cond_san}[1][]{%
+ \begingroup \PatternCodes #1\mk_setup_substr_cond}
+%% `\begingroup' |\mk_setup_substr_cond{<pattern>}{<more-args>}|
+%% can be directly called by other programmer setup commands after
+%% `\cond_id' and <pattern> have been read:
+\def\mk_setup_substr_cond #1#2{%% #1 pattern string,
+ %% #2 additional arguments, e.g., `{#1}' to keep tested string
+ \endgroup
+ \expandafter \edef
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond \cond_id \endcsname ##1{%
+% \expandafter \noexpand
+% \csname \substr_cond \cond_id \endcsname %% 2009/04/10:
+ \make_not_expanding_cs{\substr_cond \cond_id}%
+%% By `\edef', the name of the substring conditional is stored here
+%% as a single token. The rest of the sandbox follows.
+ ##1\noexpand~#1\dollar_tilde&#2}%
+ \let\dollar_tilde\sandbox_dollar}
+%% If a tilde `~' has been used instead of `$', the default
+%% is restored.
+\def\sandbox_dollar{$}
+\let\dollar_tilde\sandbox_dollar
+%% The following general tool |\make_not_expanding_cs| has been used
+%% (many definitions in 'latex.ltx' could have used it): %% 2009/04/10
+\def\make_not_expanding_cs#1{%
+ \expandafter \noexpand \csname #1\endcsname}
+%%
+%% === Getting rid of the tildes ===
+%% |\let~\TildeGobbles| can be used to suppress dummy patterns
+%% (contained in <split2>)
+%% in `\write'ing or with `\edef'. ... will probably become obsolete
+%% ... however, it is helpful in that you needn't care
+%% whether there is a dummy wrap left at all. (2009/04/13)
+\newcommand{\TildeGobbles}{} \def\TildeGobbles#1${}
+%% |\RemoveDummyPattern| is used to remove the dummy pattern
+%% \emph{immediately}, not waiting for `\write'ing
+%% or other ``total'' expansion: %% 2009/04/13
+\newcommand{\RemoveDummyPattern}{} \def\RemoveDummyPattern#1~#2${#1}
+%% |\RemoveDummyPatternArg<macro>{<arg>}| executes
+%% `\RemoveDummyPattern' in the next argument:
+\newcommand*{\RemoveDummyPatternArg}[2]{%
+ \expandafter #1\expandafter {\RemoveDummyPattern #2}}
+%% |\RemoveTilde| is used to remove the tilde that separated
+%% the dummy pattern from <split1>.
+% %% An alternative policy is to pass
+% %% <target> (as an argument) to the parsing macro.
+\newcommand{\RemoveTilde}{} \def\RemoveTilde#1~{#1}
+%% |\RemoveTildeArg<macro>{<arg>}| executes `\RemoveTilde'
+%% in the next argument:
+\newcommand*{\RemoveTildeArg}[2]{%
+ \expandafter #1\expandafter {\RemoveTilde #2}}
+%%
+%% === Calling conditionals ===
+%% |\ProcessStringWith{<target-string>}{<id>}| builds the sandbox
+%% to search <target-string> for the <pattern> associated with the
+%% parser-conditional that is identified by <id>, the sandbox then
+%% calls the parser.
+\newcommand*{\ProcessStringWith}[2]{%
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\endcsname{#1}}
+%% |\ProcessExpandedWith{<string-macro>}{<id>}| does the same but with
+%% a \emph{macro} (like `\fdInputLine' or `\OutputString') in which
+%% the string to be tested is stored.
+\newcommand*{\ProcessExpandedWith}[2]{%
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\expandafter \endcsname
+ \expandafter{#1}}
+%% I would have preferred the reversed order of arguments which seems
+%% to be more natural, but the present is more efficient.
+%% Macros with reversed order are currently stored after `\endinput'
+%% in section~\ref{sec:pondered}, may be they once return.
+%%
+%% Anyway, most desired will be |\ProcessInputWith{<id>}| just
+%% applying to `\fdInputLine':
+\newcommand*{\ProcessInputWith}[1]{%
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond #1\expandafter \endcsname
+ \expandafter{\fdInputLine}}
+%% (Definition almost copied for efficiency.)
+ %% TODO: error when undefined 2009/04/07
+%%
+%% === Copy jobs ===
+%% A job identifier <id> may also be considered a mere \emph{hook},
+%% a \emph{placeholder} for a parsing job. What function actually is
+%% called may depend on conditions that change while reading the
+%% <input> file. %%% On a certain condition,
+%% |\CopyFDconditionFromTo{<id1>}{<id2>}|
+%% \emph{creates or redefines a sandbox builder} with identifier <id2>
+%% that afterwards behaves like the sandbox builder <id1>.
+%% So you can store a certain behaviour as <id1> in advance in order
+%% once to change the behaviour of <id2> into that of <id1>.
+\newcommand*{\CopyFDconditionFromTo}[2]{%
+ \expandafter \let
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\expandafter \endcsname
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond #1\endcsname}
+%% (Only the \emph{sandbox} is copied here---what about
+%% changing conditionals?) %% TODO
+%%
+%% An ``almost'' example is typesetting documentation from a package
+%% file where the ``Legalese'' header might be typeset verbatim
+%% although it is marked as ``comment.'' (The present %% 2009/04/07
+%% example changes ``hand-made'' macros instead.)
+%%
+%% This feature could have been placed more below as a ``programming
+%% tool.''
+%%
+%% == Programming tools ==
+%% === Tails of conditionals ===
+%% \label{sec:tails}
+%% When creating complex \emph{expandable} conditionals,
+%% this may amount to have primitive `\if' ... `\fi' conditionals
+%% nested quite deeply, once perhaps too deep for \TeX's memory.
+%% To avoid this, you can apply the common `\expandafter' trick
+%% which finishes the current `\if' ... `\fi' before an inside
+%% macro is executed (cf. \TeX book p.~219 on ``tail recursion'').
+%%
+%% Internally tests whether certain strings are present at certain
+%% places will be carried out by tests on emptiness or
+%% onwards) on starting with `~'. E.g.,
+%% ``#1~=~<split1> empty'' indicates that either the <pattern>
+%% starts a line or the line is empty altogether (this must be
+%% decided by another test).
+%%
+%% |\IfFDempty{<arg>}{<when-empty>}{<when-not-empty>}|
+%% is used to test <arg> on emptyness (without expanding it):
+\newcommand*{\IfFDempty}[1]{%
+ \ifx$#1$\expandafter \@firstoftwo \else
+ \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi}
+%% |\IfFDinputEmpty{<when-empty>}{<when-not-empty>}| is a variant of
+%% the previous to execute <when-empty> if the loop processing <input>
+%% finds an empty line---otherwise <when-not-empty>.
+\newcommand*{\IfFDinputEmpty}{%
+ \ifx\fdInputLine\@empty \expandafter \@firstoftwo \else
+ \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi}
+%% |\IfFDdollar{<arg>}{<when-empty>}{<when-not-empty>}|
+%% is another variant, testing <split2> for being `$',
+%% main indicator of there is a match anywhere in <target>
+%% (as opposed to starting or ending match):
+\newcommand*{\IfFDdollar}[1]{%
+ \ifx$#1\expandafter \@firstoftwo \else
+ \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi}
+%% It is exemplified and explained in section~\ref{sec:replchain}.
+%% (The whole policy requires that `~' remains active in any
+%% testing macros here!)
+%%
+%% However, you might always just type the replacement text
+%% (in one line) instead of
+%% such an `\If'\,... (for efficiency \dots)
+%%
+%% If expandability is not desired, you can just chain macros that
+%% rework (so re-define) `\OutputString' or so.
+%%
+%% 2009/04/11: tending towards combining ...
+%% Keeping empty input and empty arguments apart is useful in that
+%% \emph{one} test of emptiness per input line should suffice---it
+%% may be left open whether this should be the first of all tests
+%% \dots
+%%
+%% === Line counter ===
+%% A \LaTeX\ counter |fdInputLine| may be useful for screen or log
+%% messages, moreover you can use it to control processing of the
+%% <input> file ``from outside,'' not dependent on what the parsing
+%% macros find. The header of the file might be typeset verbatim,
+%% but we may be too lazy to define the ``header'' in terms of
+%% what is in the file. We just decide that the first ... lines
+%% are the ``header,'' even without counting just trying whether
+%% the output is fine. It may be necessary to change that number
+%% manually when the header changes.
+%%
+%% You also can insert lines in <output>
+%% which have no counterpart in <input>---if you know what you are
+%% doing. With 'makedoc', there is a hook `\EveryComment' that can
+%% be used to issue commands ``from outside'' at a place where
+%% executing the command is safe or appropriate.
+\newcounter{fdInputLine}
+%% You then must insert |\CountInputLines| in the second argument
+%% of `\ProcessFileWith' (or in a macro called from there)
+%% so that the counter is stepped. %% TODO!? 2009/04/07
+\newcommand*{\CountInputLines}{\global\advance\c@fdInputLine\@ne}
+%% At present %% 2009/04/07 TODO
+%% the counter is reset by `\ProcessFileWith', this may change.
+%%
+%% |\IfInputLine{<relation><number>}{<true>}{<false>}|, when called
+%% from the processing loop (second argument of `\ProcessFileWith')
+%% issues <true> commands if `\value{fdInputLine}<relation><number>'
+%% is true, otherwise <false>. <relation> may usually be just `='.
+\newcommand*{\IfInputLine}[1]{%
+ \ifnum\c@fdInputLine#1\relax \expandafter \@firstoftwo
+ \else \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi}
+%%
+%% === The ``identity job'' `LEAVE' ===
+%% \label{sec:LEAVE}
+%% The job with identifier |LEAVE|
+%% \emph{leaves} an (expandable) chain of jobs
+%% (as expandable replacement in section~\ref{sec:replchain})
+%% and \emph{leaves} the processed string without changing it
+%% and without the braces enclosing it:
+\expandafter \let
+ \csname \setup_substr_cond LEAVE\endcsname \@firstofone
+%% I.e., `\ProcessStringWith{<string>}{LEAVE}' expands to <string>
+%% ... \ProcessStringWith{(Indeed!)}{LEAVE}
+
+%% == Setup for expandable chains of replacements ==
+%% \label{sec:replchain}%% TODO makedoc: provide less visible label/ref 2009/04/11
+%% By the following means, you can create macros
+%% (`\Transform' among them) such that, e.g.,
+%% \[`\edef\OutputString{\Transform{<string>}}'\] renders `\OutputString'
+%% the result of applying a chain (sequence) of stringwise replacements
+%% to <string>.
+%% You can even write a transformed input <string> to a file
+%% without defining anything anything after `\read to'\,.\,.\,.
+%% In this case however, you don't get any statistical message
+%% about what happened or not. With `\edef\OutputString' you can at
+%% least issue some `changed!' or `left!' (maybe `\message{!}' vs.\
+%% `\message{.}').
+%% There is an application in 'makedoc' for ``typographical upgrading''
+%% from plain text to \TeX\ input.
+%%
+%% |\repl_all_chain_expandable| will be the backbone of the
+%% replacements. It is called by some parsing macro <parser>
+%% and receives from the latter <split1>~=~#1 and <split2>~=~#2.
+%% #3 is the result of what happened so far.
+\def\repl_all_chain_expandable#1#2#3#4#5#6{%
+ %% #1, #2 splits, #3 past, #4 substitute,
+ %% #5 repeat parser, #6 pass to
+% \ifx~#2\expandafter\@firstoftwo\else\expandafter\@secondoftwo\fi
+%% The previous line would be somewhat faster, but let us exemplify
+%% `\IfFDdollar' from section~\ref{sec:tails} instead:
+ \IfFDdollar{#2}%
+%% If #2 starts with `$'---with category code 3, ``math shift''!,
+%% it \emph{is} `$', due to not reading `$'
+%% from input with its standard category code 3
+%% and the sandbox construction (where `$' appears with its standard
+%% category code). %% TODO might be explained earlier 2009/04/11
+%% %% or refer to here.
+%% And this is the case \emph{exactly} when the <pattern> from
+%% <parser> didn't match, again due to the input category codes.
+%% Now on \emph{no} match, the sandbox builder #6 is called
+%% with target string #3#1 where the last tested string is attached
+%% to previous results. The ending `~' is removed, #6 inserts a new
+%% wrap for the new dummy pattern.
+ {\RemoveTildeArg #6{#3#1}}%
+%% Otherwise ... the \emph{sandbox builder} <sandbox>
+%% (that will be shown below) that called <parser>
+%% initialized #5 to be that <parser> itself. (<parser> otherwise
+%% wouldn't know who it is.) So <parser> calls itself with another sandbox
+%% `#2&'. Note that #2 contains \lq`~<pattern>$'\rq\ due to the initial
+%% <sandbox> building.
+ {#5#2&{#3#1#4}{#4}#5#6}}
+%% #4 is the replacement string that <sandbox> passed to <parse>.
+%% The first argument after the `&' is previous stuff plus
+%% the recently skipped <split1>
+%% plus #4 replacing the string <pattern> that was matched.
+%%
+%% Finally, #5 and #6 again ``recall'' <parser> and the sandbox
+%% builder to which to change in case of no other match.
+%%
+%% % TODO move following up!? 2009/04/11
+%% |\MakeExpandableAllReplacer{<id>}{<pattern>}{<replace>}{<id-next>}|
+%% creates sandbox and parser with common identifier <id> and search
+%% pattern <pattern>. Each occurrence of <pattern> will be replaced by
+%% <replace>. When <pattern> is not found, the sandbox builder for
+%% <id-next> is called. This may be another replacing macro of the
+%% same kind. To return the result without further transformations,
+%% call job `LEAVE' (section~\ref{sec:LEAVE}).
+\newcommand*{\MakeExpandableAllReplacer}{%
+ \afterassignment\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl_san
+ \def\cond_id}
+%% ... usual intermezzo for reading patterns with non-standard
+%% category codes, this time we read \emph{two} patterns \dots
+\newcommand*{\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl_san}[1][]{%
+ \begingroup \PatternCodes #1\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl}
+%% Here comes the real work.
+\newcommand*{\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl}[3]{%
+ %% #1 pattern, #2 substitute, #3 pass to
+ \endgroup
+%% We take pains to call next jobs by single
+%% command strings and store them this way, not by `\csname',
+%% as `\ProcessStringWith' would do it. `\edef\@tempa'
+%% is used for this purpose, but \dots
+ \edef\@tempa{%
+ \noexpand\mk_setup_substr_cond{#1}{%
+ {}{#2}%
+ \noexpand\noexpand
+%% That `\edef\@tempa' must \emph{not expand} the controll
+%% words after they have been computed from `\csname' etc.
+%% Moreover, expansion of the parser commands
+%% must be avoided another time, when `\@tempa' is executed.
+ \make_not_expanding_cs{\substr_cond\cond_id}%
+ \noexpand\noexpand
+ \make_not_expanding_cs{\setup_substr_cond #3}}}%
+%% Those internal setup commands start with `\endgroup' to switch back
+%% to standard category codes. We must match them here by
+%% `\begingroup'.
+ \begingroup \@tempa
+ \begingroup \mk_substr_cond{#1}{%
+ \repl_all_chain_expandable{##1}{##2}}}
+%% The final command is the one that we explained first. %% TODO 2009/04/11
+%%
+%% Support for dozens of replacements in one sequence
+%% and for screen messages
+%% must wait for another release, sorry! %% TODO 2009/04/11
+%%
+%% == Leave package mode ==
+%% We restore the underscore `_' for math subscripts.
+%% (This might better depend on something \dots) %% TODO 2009/04/07
+\catcode`\_=8 %% restores underscore use for subscripts
+
+\endinput
+%% \TeX\ ignores the rest of the file when it is \emph{input}
+%% ``in the sense of `\input''', as opposed to just reading
+%% the file line by line to a macro like `\fdInputLine'.
+%%
+%% == Pondered ==
+%% \label{sec:pondered}
+ %% TODO abbreviated commands (aliases) \MkSubstrCond...
+ %% TODO \@onlypreamble!?
+\newcommand*{\ApplySubstringConditional}[1]{%
+ %% #1 identifier; text to be searched expected next
+ \csname setup_substr_cond:#1\endcsname}
+\newcommand*{\ApplySubstringConditionalToExpanded}[1]{% 2009/03/31+
+ \csname setup_substr_cond:#1\expandafter \endcsname \expandafter}
+\newcommand*{\ApplySubstringConditionalToInputString}[1]{% 2009/03/31+
+ \csname setup_substr_cond:#1\expandafter \endcsname
+ \expandafter {\fdInputLine}}
+ %% TODO or `\OutputString', even `\read' to `\OutputString'!?
+% \newcommand*{\ApplySubstringConditionalToExpanded}[2]{%
+% %% note: without assignments, robust!
+% %% BUT the `\csname ... \expandafter \endcsname' method is faster
+% \expandafter \reversed_apply_substr_cond
+% \expandafter {#2}{#1}}
+% \newcommand*{\reversed_apply_substr_cond}[2]{%
+% \ApplySubstringConditional{#2}{#1}}
+ %% ODER:
+% \newcommand*{\expand_attach_arg}[2]{%% 2009/03/31
+% %% #1 command with previous args, TODO cf. LaTeX3
+% \expandafter \attach_arg \expandafter {#1}{#2}}
+% %% actually #1 may contain more than one token,
+% %% only first expanded
+% \newcommand*{\attach_arg}[2]{#2{#1}}
+% \newcommand*{\ApplySubstringConditionalToExpanded}[2]{%
+% \expandafter \attach_arg \expandafter
+% {#2}{\ApplySubstringConditional{#1}}}
+%%
+%%
+%%
+%% == VERSION HISTORY ==
+%%
+v0.1 2009/04/03 very first version, tested on morgan.sty
+v0.2 2009/04/05 counter fdInputLine, \ProvidesFile moved from
+ \ProcessFile to \ResultFile, \CopyFD...,
+ category section first, more sectioning,
+ suppressing empty code lines before section
+ titles; discussion, \Delimiters
+ 2009/04/06 more discussion
+ 2009/04/07 more discussion, factored \WriteProvides out from
+ \ResultFile, \ProcessExpandedWith corrected
+ 2009/04/08 \InputString -> \fdInputline;
+ removed \ignorespaces
+ 2009/04/09 \WhenInputLine[2] -> \IfInputline[3],
+ \ProcessInputWith, typos,
+ \WriteProvides message `with'
+ 2009/04/10 \make_not_expanding_cs
+ DISCOVERED ``IF SUBSTRING'' ALGORITHM WRONG
+ (<str1><str2><str1> in <str1><str2>)
+v0.3 2009/04/11 SOME THINGS GIVEN UP EARLIER WILL BE REMOVED,
+ TO BE STORED IN THE COPY AS OF 2009/04/10
+ mainly: sandbox setup (tilde/dollar)
+ REAL ADDITION: setup for expandable replacing
+ 2009/04/12 played with `chain' vs. `sequence';
+ plain `...', `cf.', `etc.' for `mdcorr.cfg'
+ 2009/04/13 \RemoveTilde...
+ 2009/04/15 reworked text, same mistake \in@