diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/nicetext/doclog/fifinddo.doc')
-rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/nicetext/doclog/fifinddo.doc | 807 |
1 files changed, 807 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/nicetext/doclog/fifinddo.doc b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/nicetext/doclog/fifinddo.doc new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..7178ee20640 --- /dev/null +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/nicetext/doclog/fifinddo.doc @@ -0,0 +1,807 @@ +\ProvidesFile{fifinddo.doc}[2009/04/16 automatically generated with makedoc.sty] +\begin{packagecode} +%% 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'. +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Format and package version \unskip } + +\begin{packagecode} +\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}[1994/12/01] +% 1994/12/01: \newcommand* etc. +\ProvidesPackage{fifinddo}[\filedate\space v\fileversion\space + filtering TeX(t) files by TeX (UL)] +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Category codes \unskip } + + +We use the ``underscore'' as ``compound identifier.'' +\begin{packagecode} +\catcode`\_=11 %% underscore used in control words +\end{packagecode} +|\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. +\begin{packagecode} +\@ifundefined{MakeOther}{\let\MakeOther\@makeother}{} +\newcommand*{\fdPatternCodes}{\MakeOther\&\MakeOther\$} +\newcommand*{\PatternCodes}{} \let\PatternCodes\fdPatternCodes + %% TODO adding/removing +\end{packagecode} +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\[\]': +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\Delimiters}[2]{% + \MakeOther\{\MakeOther\}\catcode`#1=1\catcode`#2=2\relax} +\end{packagecode} +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?): +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\PercentChar}{} \let\PercentChar\@percentchar +\newcommand*{\BackslashChar}{} \let\BackslashChar\@backslashcar +\end{packagecode} + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces File handling \unskip } + +\begin{packagecode} +\newwrite\result_file %% or write to \@mainaux!? +\end{packagecode} +|\ResultFile{<output>}| opens (and empties) a file +<output> to be written into. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\ResultFile}[1]{% + \def\result_file_name{#1}% + \immediate\openout\result_file=#1} +\end{packagecode} +|\WriteResult{<balanced>}| writes a <balanced> line into +<output> (or more lines with `^^J'). +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\WriteResult}[1]{% + \immediate\write\result_file{#1}} +\end{packagecode} +|\WriteProvides| writes a `\ProvidesFile' command to the +opened <output> file. This should be used when <output> +is made as \LaTeXe\ input. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\WriteProvides}{% + \WriteResult{% + \string\ProvidesFile{\result_file_name}% + [\the\year/\two@digits\month/\two@digits\day\space + automatically generated with fifinddo.sty]}}% +\end{packagecode} +|\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|. +\begin{packagecode} +\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} +\end{packagecode} +|\CloseResultFile| closes <output>. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\CloseResultFile}{\immediate\closeout\result_file} +\end{packagecode} +Peter Wilson's 'newfile' provides more powerful file handling. +% <- TODO relevant? 2009/04/12 + +\pagebreak %% TODO move theory to fifinddo.tex 2009/04/12 + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Basic handling of substring conditionals \unskip } + +\label{sec:theory} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces ``Substring Theory'' \unskip } + +\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} $\dots$}\\ + `\IfSubStringInString{AMSTERDAM}{AMSTERD}{YES}{NO}'\\ + `\IfSubStringInString{TORONTO}{TORON}{YES}{NO}'\\ + `\IfSubStringInString{bonbon}{bon}{YES}{NO}'\footnote{% + Polynesian: `aku aku', `rongorongo', `wiki wiki' $\dots$}\\ + `\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&'. + + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Plan for proceeding \unskip } + +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. + + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Set up conditionals \unskip } + +`substr_cond' is the ``name space'' for substring conditionals. +A colon separates it from \emph{``job identifiers''} in the actual +macro names. +\begin{packagecode} +\def\substr_cond{substr_cond:} +\end{packagecode} +|\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. +\begin{packagecode} +\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 +\end{packagecode} +`\begingroup' |\mk_substr_cond{<pattern>}| +can be directly called by other programmer setup commands when +`\cond_id' and <pattern> have been read. +\begin{packagecode} +\def\mk_substr_cond #1{%% #1 pattern string + \endgroup \@namedef{\substr_cond \cond_id}##1#1##2&} +\end{packagecode} +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. + + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Set up sandboxes \unskip } + +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. +\begin{packagecode} +\def\setup_substr_cond{setup_substr_cond:} +\end{packagecode} +|\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$\dots$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. +\begin{packagecode} +\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} +\end{packagecode} +`\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: +\begin{packagecode} +\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}% +\end{packagecode} +By `\edef', the name of the substring conditional is stored here +as a single token. The rest of the sandbox follows. +\begin{packagecode} + ##1\noexpand~#1\dollar_tilde}% + \let\dollar_tilde\sandbox_dollar} +\end{packagecode} +If a tilde `~' has been used instead of `$', the default +is restored. +\begin{packagecode} +\def\sandbox_dollar{$} +\let\dollar_tilde\sandbox_dollar +\end{packagecode} +The following general tool |\make_not_expanding_cs| has been used +(many definitions in 'latex.ltx' could have used it): %% 2009/04/10 +\begin{packagecode} +\def\make_not_expanding_cs#1{% + \expandafter \noexpand \csname #1\endcsname} +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Getting rid of the tildes \unskip } + +|\let~\TildeGobbles| can be used to suppress dummy patterns +(contained in <split2>) +in `\write'ing or with `\edef'. $\dots$ will probably become obsolete +$\dots$ however, it is helpful in that you needn't care +whether there is a dummy wrap left at all. (2009/04/13) +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand{\TildeGobbles}{} \def\TildeGobbles#1${} +\end{packagecode} +|\RemoveDummyPattern| is used to remove the dummy pattern +\emph{immediately}, not waiting for `\write'ing +or other ``total'' expansion: %% 2009/04/13 +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand{\RemoveDummyPattern}{} \def\RemoveDummyPattern#1~#2${#1} +\end{packagecode} +|\RemoveDummyPatternArg<macro>{<arg>}| executes +`\RemoveDummyPattern' in the next argument: +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\RemoveDummyPatternArg}[2]{% + \expandafter #1\expandafter {\RemoveDummyPattern #2}} +\end{packagecode} +|\RemoveTilde| is used to remove the tilde that separated +the dummy pattern from <split1>. +\begin{packagecode} +% %% An alternative policy is to pass +% %% <target> (as an argument) to the parsing macro. +\newcommand{\RemoveTilde}{} \def\RemoveTilde#1~{#1} +\end{packagecode} +|\RemoveTildeArg<macro>{<arg>}| executes `\RemoveTilde' +in the next argument: +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\RemoveTildeArg}[2]{% + \expandafter #1\expandafter {\RemoveTilde #2}} +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Calling conditionals \unskip } + +|\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. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\ProcessStringWith}[2]{% + \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\endcsname{#1}} +\end{packagecode} +|\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. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\ProcessExpandedWith}[2]{% + \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\expandafter \endcsname + \expandafter{#1}} +\end{packagecode} +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': +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\ProcessInputWith}[1]{% + \csname \setup_substr_cond #1\expandafter \endcsname + \expandafter{\fdInputLine}} +\end{packagecode} +(Definition almost copied for efficiency.) +\begin{packagecode} + %% TODO: error when undefined 2009/04/07 +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Copy jobs \unskip } + +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>. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\CopyFDconditionFromTo}[2]{% + \expandafter \let + \csname \setup_substr_cond #2\expandafter \endcsname + \csname \setup_substr_cond #1\endcsname} +\end{packagecode} +(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.'' + + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Programming tools \unskip } + + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Tails of conditionals \unskip } + +\label{sec:tails} +When creating complex \emph{expandable} conditionals, +this may amount to have primitive `\if' $\dots$ `\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' $\dots$ `\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): +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\IfFDempty}[1]{% + \ifx$#1$\expandafter \@firstoftwo \else + \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi} +\end{packagecode} +|\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>. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\IfFDinputEmpty}{% + \ifx\fdInputLine\@empty \expandafter \@firstoftwo \else + \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi} +\end{packagecode} +|\IfFDdollar{<arg>}{<when-empty>}{<when-not-empty>}| +is another variant, testing <split2> for being `$', +main indicator of there is a match anywhere in <target> +(as opposed to starting or ending match): +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\IfFDdollar}[1]{% + \ifx$#1\expandafter \@firstoftwo \else + \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi} +\end{packagecode} +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'\,$\dots$ (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 $\dots$ +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 + + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Line counter \unskip } + +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 $\dots$ 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. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcounter{fdInputLine} +\end{packagecode} +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 +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\CountInputLines}{\global\advance\c@fdInputLine\@ne} +\end{packagecode} +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 `='. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\IfInputLine}[1]{% + \ifnum\c@fdInputLine#1\relax \expandafter \@firstoftwo + \else \expandafter \@secondoftwo \fi} +\end{packagecode} + +\subsection{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces The ``identity job'' `LEAVE' \unskip } + +\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: +\begin{packagecode} +\expandafter \let + \csname \setup_substr_cond LEAVE\endcsname \@firstofone +\end{packagecode} +I.e., `\ProcessStringWith{<string>}{LEAVE}' expands to <string> +$\dots$ \ProcessStringWith{(Indeed!)}{LEAVE} + + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Setup for expandable chains of replacements \unskip } + +\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. +\begin{packagecode} +\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 +\end{packagecode} +The previous line would be somewhat faster, but let us exemplify +`\IfFDdollar' from section~\ref{sec:tails} instead: +\begin{packagecode} + \IfFDdollar{#2}% +\end{packagecode} +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. +\begin{packagecode} + {\RemoveTildeArg #6{#3#1}}% +\end{packagecode} +Otherwise $\dots$ 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>$'\rq\ due to the initial +<sandbox> building. +\begin{packagecode} + {#5#2&{#3#1#4}{#4}#5#6}} +\end{packagecode} +#4 is the replacement string that <sandbox> passed to <parse>. +The first argument after the `&' is previous stuff plus +the recently skipped <split1> +plus #4 replacing the string <pattern> that was matched. + +Finally, #5 and #6 again ``recall'' <parser> and the sandbox +builder to which to change in case of no other match. + +% TODO move following up!? 2009/04/11 +|\MakeExpandableAllReplacer{<id>}{<pattern>}{<replace>}{<id-next>}| +creates sandbox and parser with common identifier <id> and search +pattern <pattern>. Each occurrence of <pattern> will be replaced by +<replace>. When <pattern> is not found, the sandbox builder for +<id-next> is called. This may be another replacing macro of the +same kind. To return the result without further transformations, +call job `LEAVE' (section~\ref{sec:LEAVE}). +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\MakeExpandableAllReplacer}{% + \afterassignment\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl_san + \def\cond_id} +\end{packagecode} +$\dots$ usual intermezzo for reading patterns with non-standard +category codes, this time we read \emph{two} patterns \dots +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl_san}[1][]{% + \begingroup \PatternCodes #1\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl} +\end{packagecode} +Here comes the real work. +\begin{packagecode} +\newcommand*{\mk_setup_xpdbl_all_repl}[3]{% + %% #1 pattern, #2 substitute, #3 pass to + \endgroup +\end{packagecode} +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 +\begin{packagecode} + \edef\@tempa{% + \noexpand\mk_setup_substr_cond{#1}{% + {}{#2}% + \noexpand\noexpand +\end{packagecode} +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. +\begin{packagecode} + \make_not_expanding_cs{\substr_cond\cond_id}% + \noexpand\noexpand + \make_not_expanding_cs{\setup_substr_cond #3}}}% +\end{packagecode} +Those internal setup commands start with `\endgroup' to switch back +to standard category codes. We must match them here by +`\begingroup'. +\begin{packagecode} + \begingroup \@tempa + \begingroup \mk_substr_cond{#1}{% + \repl_all_chain_expandable{##1}{##2}}} +\end{packagecode} +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 + + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Leave package mode \unskip } + +We restore the underscore `_' for math subscripts. +(This might better depend on something \dots) %% TODO 2009/04/07 +\begin{packagecode} +\catcode`\_=8 %% restores underscore use for subscripts + +\endinput +\end{packagecode} +\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'. + + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces Pondered \unskip } + +\label{sec:pondered} +\begin{packagecode} + %% 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}}} +\end{packagecode} + +\section{\hspace{1sp}\ignorespaces VERSION HISTORY \unskip } + + +\begin{packagecode} +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@ + +\end{packagecode} |