diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master')
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/README | 29 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf | bin | 350824 -> 472739 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt | 9 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex | 780 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty | 9 |
7 files changed, 778 insertions, 59 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/README b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/README index a9921cc90ac..1ba2bc15080 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/README +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/README @@ -1,24 +1,26 @@ README for the `dowith' package - Apply Command to List Items - no Separators, no Iterator - (C) Uwe Lueck 2012/05/10 + Apply Command to Each Item in a List of Arguments + in TeX's Mouth + (C) Uwe Lueck 2012/05/18 -`dowith.sty' provides macros for applying a command to all -elements of a list without separators, such as -`\DoWithAllIn{<cmd>}{<list-macro>}', and also for extending -and reducing macros storing such lists. Applications in mind -belonged to \LaTeX, but the package should work with other -formats as well. Loop and list macros in other packages are -discussed. There is an emphasis on expandability (no iterator), -without relying on e-TeX. +`dowith.sty' provides macros for applying a command to all items +in a list of macro arguments, and also for extending and reducing +macros storing such lists. "Brace groups" are single items of +such lists, as opposed to token lists. Applications in mind +belonged to LaTeX, but the package should work with other formats +as well. Loop and list macros in other packages are discussed. +Iteration is implemented within "TeX's mouth," so works within +\write as with `blog.sty'. There is no need for e-TeX. Privately, I have used macros for a more powerful package where the command may have more than one argument and there is a "separator" in output, such as a comma or a vertical stroke between links. This extended package may soon appear here as well. -KEYWORDS: macro programming, loops, list macros +KEYWORDS: programming structures; + macro programming, loops, list macros RELATED PACKAGES: etextools, etoolbox, forarray, forloop, multido, moredefs, lmake, texapi, xfor, xspace @@ -45,6 +47,11 @@ A TDS version of the package is available as http://mirror.ctan.org/install/macros/generic/dowith.tds.zip +The file `dowith.RLS' provides RELEASE info accessible by LaTeX +FILE info packages, see + + http://ctan.org/pkg/latexfileinfo-pkgs + Please report bugs, problems, and suggestions via http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf Binary files differindex af9e9a0048d..cd51fbb17a5 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt index 48f98f04414..98d2b808e05 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt @@ -1,15 +1,16 @@ *File List* - dowith.sty 2011/11/19 v0.2 simple list loop (UL) - dowith.tex 2012/05/10 -- documenting dowith.sty + dowith.sty 2012/05/14 v0.21 simple list loop (UL) + dowith.tex 2012/05/18 -- 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 2012/12/10 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt +srcfiles.tex 2012/05/14 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt + dowith.RLS 2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS *********** - List made at 2012/05/10, 11:48 + List made at 2012/05/18, 12:16 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 de7b4c5aa7f..66b1dfca0ee 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@ -\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/10 documenting dowith.sty] -\title{\kern-\baselineskip - \textsf{\huge dowith.sty}\\---\\Apply Command - to Elements of Lists without Separators\,---\, - and without Iterator\thanks{This +\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/18 documenting dowith.sty] +\title{%%%\kern-\baselineskip + \textsf{\huge dowith.sty}\\---\\Apply Command to +% Elements of Lists without Separators\,---\,%%% 2012/05/14 +% and without Iterator\thanks{This + %% 2012/05/15, "in" 2012/05/18: + Each Item \\ in a List of Arguments in ``\TeX's Mouth"\thanks{This document describes version \textcolor{blue}{\UseVersionOf{\jobname.sty}} of \textsf{\jobname.sty} as of \UseDateOf{\jobname.sty}.}} @@ -13,27 +15,84 @@ {\SectionLevelTwoParseInput} } \documentclass[fleqn]{article}%% TODO paper dimensions!? \input{makedoc.cfg} %% shared formatting settings -\ReadPackageInfos{dowith} -% \usepackage{dowith} +% \ReadPackageInfos{dowith} +\usepackage{dowith} %% 2012/05/17b \sloppy -\MDkeywords{macro programming, loops, list macros} +\MDkeywords{programming structures; %% 2012/05/14b + macro programming, loops, list macros} \hypersetup{% pdftitle=dowith.sty handles lists without separators, pdfsubject=documenting dowith.sty -}%% /2011/08/22 +}%% 2011/08/22 +\usepackage{fixltx2e} %% \textsubscript 2012/05/17b +\makeatletter %% etc. 2012/05/17b + \newcommand*{\GetOtherChar}[2]{% + \@ifdefinable#1{% + \edef#1{\expandafter\@gobble\string#2}}} +\makeatother +\GetOtherChar\codeLB\{ +\GetOtherChar\codeRB\} +% \GetOtherChar\codeSP\ % %% ??? +{\MakeOther\ \xdef\codeSP{ }} +\newcommand*{\codelb}{\code\codeLB} +\newcommand*{\coderb}{\code\codeRB} +\newcommand*{\codesp}{\code\codeSP} +%% rm. 2012/05/17b: +% \DeclareRobustCommand*{\code}[1]{% +% \texttt{% +% \let\{\codeLB \let\}\codeRB \let\ \codeSP +% #1}} +% \newcommand*{\chtok}[2]{\ensuremath{\code{#1}\sb{#2}}} +%% <- 2012/05/17b -> +\newcommand*{\chtok}[2]{\code{#1}\textsubscript{#2}} +\newcommand*{\lbtok}{\chtok\codeLB{1}} +\newcommand*{\rbtok}{\chtok\codeRB{2}} +\newcommand*{\lttok}[1]{\chtok{#1}{11}} +\newcommand*{\sptok}{\chtok\codeSP{10}} +\providecommand*{\TTb}{\meta{The\nolinebreak[3] \TeX book}} +\providecommand*{\TTbp}{\TTb\nolinebreak[3] p} +\newenvironment*{smallpar} + {\medskip\par\begingroup\footnotesize} + {\par\endgroup\medskip} +\newcommand*{\NTOK}[1]{\textsf{ntok}(\code{#1})} +\newcommand*{\ntok}[1]{\textrm{?}\code{#1}} +\newenvironment*{example}[1] + {\trivlist\item + (\ulroman{#1})} + {\endtrivlist} +\providecommand*{\ulroman}[1]{\meta{\romannumeral #1 }} +\newcommand*{\inlineitem}[1]{\ (\ulroman{#1})\enspace + \ignorespaces} +\newcommand*{\pdots}{~.\kern\fontdimen3\font + .\kern\fontdimen3\font. } +\providecommand*{\Chi}{\mathrm{X}} \begin{document} \maketitle \begin{MDabstract}\noindent -This package provides macros for applying a command -to all elements of a list without separators, such as -`\DoWithAllIn{<cmd>}{<list-macro>}', and also for extending -and reducing macros storing such lists. Applications in mind belonged -to \LaTeX, but the package should work with other formats as well. +This package provides macros for applying a +%% mod. 2012/05/15: +% ``command" <cmd> to all items of a list $<arg-1><arg-2>\dots<arg-$n$>$ +``command" to all items in a ``list of possible macro arguments," %% v0.21a +% in ``\TeX's mouth," +% such as `\DoWithAllIn{<cmd>}{<list-macro>}', +and also for extending and reducing macros storing such lists. +``Brace groups" are single items of such lists, as opposed to + token lists. + %%% ---pleading for mathematical rigour in \TeX ology!) %% rm. 2012/05/17b +Applications in mind belonged to \LaTeX, but the package should work +with other formats as well. Loop and list macros in other packages are discussed. -%% 2012/05/09: -There is an emphasis on expandability -(no \Wikienref{iterator}), %% 2012/05/10 -without relying on \CtanPkgRef{e-tex}{$\varepsilon$-\TeX}. +% %% 2012/05/09: +% There is an emphasis on expandability +% %% mod./add. 2012/05/15: +% (no \wikienref{Iterator}{iterator;} +% essential within \cs{write} as with \CtanPkgRef{morehype}{blog.sty}), +% without relying on \CtanPkgRef{e-tex}{$\varepsilon$-\TeX}. +%% 2012/05/18: +Iteration is implemented within ``\TeX's mouth," so works within +`\write' as with \CtanPkgRef{morehype}{blog.sty}. There is no need for +\CtanPkgRef{e-tex}{$\varepsilon$-\TeX}. + \MDaddtoabstract{Related packages} \pkg{etextools}, \pkg{etoolbox}, \pkg{forarray}, \pkg{forloop}, \pkg{multido}, \pkg{moredefs}, \pkg{lmake}, @@ -42,10 +101,9 @@ without relying on \CtanPkgRef{e-tex}{$\varepsilon$-\TeX}. \tableofcontents % \newpage -% \section{Features and Usage} -\section{Usage} +\section{Usage and Features} %% restructured 2012/05/16 -% \subsection{Installing and Calling} +\subsection{Installing and Calling} The file 'dowith.sty' is provided ready, installation only requires putting it somewhere where \TeX\ finds it (which may need updating the filename data @@ -61,13 +119,606 @@ 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 below +The single commands that the package provides are described +\hyperref[sec:implement]{below} %% 2012/05/16 together with their implementation. % \section{Example} +% \section{Discussion} %% 2012/05/16 +% \subsection{What It Seems to Do \dots} +% The 'dowith' package provides tools to simplify \TeX\ macro programming. +% Understanding it \emph{really} may require understanding certain passages of +% \TTb, such as pp.~38f. It may even require overcoming +% terrible confusions in \TTb. +% Let this be a last try at understanding the package without understanding \TeX: +% It allows you to abbreviate +% \[<cmd><arg-1><cmd><arg-2>\dots<cmd><arg-$n$>\] +% by +% \[`\DoWith<cmd><arg-1><arg-2>\dots<arg-$n$>\StopDoing'\] +% or by +% \[`\DoWithAllOf<cmd>{<arg-1><arg-2>\dots<arg-$n$>}'\] +% +\subsection{What It Does With What Lists} +% \subsection{What It Actually Does \dots} +\label{sec:lists-intuit} +The term \qtd{list} may refer to various things and need clarification here. + +First of all, we are not referring to \LaTeX\ `list' environments +such as `enumerate' or `itemize'; +neither to ``\acro{TODO}" lists of what needs to be done soon. + +Rather, 'dowith' allows you to abbreviate +\[<cmd><arg-1><cmd><arg-2>\dots<cmd><arg-$n$>\] +by +\[`\DoWith<cmd><arg-1><arg-2>'\dots<arg-$n$>`\StopDoing'\] +or by +\[`\DoWithAllOf<cmd>{<arg-1><arg-2>'\dots<arg-$n$>`}'\] +With small $n$, one may doubt whether this really is an abbreviation~\dots; +anyway, +\[<arg-1><arg-2>\dots<arg-$n$>\] +was an attempt to refer to the kind of lists we are dealing with. +\[<arg-1>, <art-2>, \dots, <arg-$n$>\] +are the ``items" of the list. +The question is: what counts as an item? + +We might say that `aa' is a list of \emph{two} items, +<arg-1> being `a' and <arg-2> being `a', too. + +When we do \emph{three} keystrokes to get `a a' instead of `aa', +we still have \emph{two} items, +<arg-1> being `a' and <arg-2> being `a' too. +Strange, isn't it? + +Also, when in `aa' we replace the first `a' by a backslash, `\', +we get `\a', and this is a list of a \emph{single} item, +$<arg-1>=`\a'$~\dots + +You shouldn't believe these stories of mine entirely. +What I am alluding to is that the \emph{``items"} 'dowith' is about +are determined in terms of \emph{\TeX's tokens}, and the relation +between the ``characters you type" and \emph{\TeX's tokens} +is not entirely straightforward. + +\subsection{The Notion of Arglists for \LaTeX\ Users} +%% <- 2012/05/17b -> +% \subsection{The Notion of Arglist} +\label{sec:arglists-intuit} +Still, it may suffice to clarify what counts as an <arg-$i$> +without speaking of \emph{tokens} explicitly: It is simply +what a \emph{one-parameter macro} +(where the parameter is \emph{not delimited} in terms of + \TTbp p.~203f.) +can take as an \emph{argument.} + +The lists 'dowith' is about then are lists \emph{of possible arguments} +in the previous sense---let me call them \emph{``arglists."}\footnote{Not + to be confused with German \httpref{de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Arglist}{Arglist.}} +The single \emph{items} of such lists are those single possible arguments. +They become \emph{actual} arguments beginning from the leftmost \emph{possible} one +when 'dowith' presents them to that <cmd> mentioned earlier---where +<cmd> \emph{should} be a one-parameter macro (or some \TeX\ primitive +parsing arguments similarly). + +The reader perhaps has an \emph{intuitive} understanding of +what can be an argument of a one-parameter macro. +A \emph{strict \LaTeX} user may think that such an argument <arg-$i$> +just has form `{'<ark-$i$>`}', i.e., $<arg-$i$>=`{'<ark-$i$>`}'$ +for some <ark-$i$>. Such arguments are also called \emph{``brace groups".} +(\LaTeX's \emph{optional} arguments `[<extra>]' + do not count as possible arguments here, they are not macro arguments + in the sense of \TTb.) +In this restricted \LaTeX\ sense, arglists consist of brace groups +\[`{<ark-1>}{<ark-2>}'\dots`{'<ark-$n$>`}',\] +and each single brace group is an \emph{item} of it. + +The \emph{\TeX\ macro writer}, by contrast, knows that a macro argument +doesn't need outer braces. In an intuitive sense, a single +``command" can be a macro argument, too. ``Command" may be understood +as ``control sequence" (starting with a backslash), +but some authors also have considered single \emph{characters} +(character \emph{tokens}?) ``commands." Blank spaces, by contrast, +are ignored when a macro looks for its argument. %% 2012/05/17b + +%% useless, just name items 2012/05/17b: +% We arrive at an ``intuitive recursive definition" of ``arglist:" \ +% (\meta{i})\enspace The empty list is an arglist; it doesn't have an item +% for 'dowith'. \ (\meta{ii})\enspace If <list> is an arglist, then +% (a)~`{<ark>}<list>' is an arglist whose first item for 'dowith' is `{<ark>}'; +% (b)~`<cs><list>' with a ``control sequence" <cs> +% is an arglist whose first item is `<cs>' +% (for the command <cmd> to which 'dowith' presents <cs>); and +% (c)~`<char><list>' with a non-blank character <char> +% is an arglist whose first item is `<char>'. \ +% (\meta{iii})\enspace Nothing else is an arglist. +% +% But keep in mind that this ``intuitive" understanding essentially is wrong. + +\subsection{\TeX's Tokens} +\label{sec:toks} + +% The \emph{\TeX\ macro writer} understanding \TeX\ properly +% does not really think of arglists. \TeX perts instead think of +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), + \urlhttpref{tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-2/tb28jeffrey.pdf}.} +or somewhere deeper. +The 'dowith' package is a tool to control those events +(and actually, it is confined to \TeX's mouth). + +\begin{smallpar} +The ``characters you type" are somewhere in front of ``\TeX's mouth", +while \emph{in} \TeX's mouth, there are \emph{tokens}. +Before \TeX\ \emph{swallows} them, it often manipulates them +in some ways, after they got \emph{into} its mouth. + +More formally, \TeX\ has a \emph{character buffer.} +It forms a single token from an initial segment of the buffer content---unless +there is a special situation with blank spaces or something pathological. +When an \emph{escape character}, as the backslash usually is one, +has been noticed recently (that isn't followed by another one immediately), +the character buffer may need to be feeded from more outside, +until it contains enough material to form a token from. +The character(s) \emph{after} the escape character until +some delimiting character form a \emph{string} that is the +\emph{name} of the token that is formed. +What has been used to form a token is removed from the character buffer. + +There are \emph{two kinds of tokens} here: \emph{named} tokens +and \emph{character} tokens. ``Named" tokens usually are referred +to as ``control sequence tokens" or just ``control sequences"---I~really +want to avoid those horrible confusions from \TTb. +There never are any ``parameter tokens" in \TeX's mouth +(perhaps unless one considers a one-step macro expansion + a two-or-more-step procedure). + +For every \emph{string of characters}, there is exactly one +(possible) \emph{named token} whose name the string is.\footnote{``Possible" + refers to the fact that \TeX\ does not store named tokens anywhere + before they appear in its mouth, maybe apart from ``primitive" + tokens that have a ``pre-assigned meaning" when a \TeX run + starts.---What is more bad with my claim is that + the \TeX\ program by design cannot extend its memory arbitrarily---even + not using the ``cloud''---, so it doesn't support tokens + whose name lengths are above a certain limit.} +It is so common (starting from \TTb) to denote the token whose name +is <string> by \lq\verb+\+<string>\rq. For instance, the token whose +name is `input' is denoted by \qtd{&\input}. On the other hand, +on page~7 of \TTb\ \qtd{&\input} is a ``string of characters." +With this notation, it is already difficult to explain what +the \LaTeX\ command `\DeclareRobustCommand' does or what the difference +between a starred \LaTeX\ command and a starred \LaTeX\ environment is.\footnote{% + A reader knowing \LaTeX\ only thinks that \qtd{\code{&\\\codesp}} + is the result of typing a double backslash and a space + and that \qtd{\cs{equation*}} is the ``command" \cs{equation} + followed by a `*'.} +\TTb\ makes it worse by saying on page~39: +\meta{``A control sequence is considered to be a single object + that is no longer composed of a sequence of symbols."} +So ``it depends" whether \qtd{&\input} is a string of characters or not---it \emph{is +before} tokenization, but \emph{no longer} afterwards. +So if you have two computers and start a \TeX\ run on each of them +with a little difference in time, there will be a moment where +\qtd{&\input} is a string on the one computer but not on the other? +This is like saying \meta{``When we apply the square root function to +the number 4, the number 4 will no longer be the number 4, +it will be the number 2 instead."} +\end{smallpar} + +\TTb\ does offer an alternative notation for named tokens: ``boxing;" +so the token whose name is `input' can be denoted by the rather +``graphical" notation \qtd{|input|} (used only exceptionally).\footnote{% + The box notation is introduced on page~38 without explanation, + as if it explained something.} +\emph{I}~would suggest something like +\qtd{\NTOK{input}} for clarity and \qtd{\ntok{input}} +for brevity.\footnote{I am suggesting the question mark for named tokens + since \TeX\ ``must look up the current definition" of a named token + according to \TTbp.~39, while the meaning of character tokens rather + is ``fixed," at least according to \TTbp.~39. However, + \emph{active}-character such as .&~ are in the same situation + as named tokens as to this respect. The dot notation may be fine for them, + though.} + +\begin{smallpar} +\emph{Character tokens} get into \TeX's mouth by tokenization +when characters begin the buffer content while \emph{not} scanning +a name for a named token. A single character then is removed from the +character buffer, and a token storing its character code and current +category code is pushed into \TeX's mouth. + +Named tokens may get into \TeX's mouth by ``tokenization" as described above, +i.e., they are drawn from the character buffer. But they also can +appear in \TeX's mouth ``from within," +by the manipulation inside \TeX's mouth. + +More formally, those manipulations are called ``expansion," +and \TeX's mouth can be conceived of as a \emph{token buffer} +that is feeded to the right (or end) by tokenization from the character buffer. +Expansion means that certain tokens in the token buffer are substituted +by other ones. This way tokens may get into \TeX's mouth that +emerged from tokenization a ``long time ago", maybe in a previous +run that created the \emph{format} (\TeX's variant \code{INITEX}); +or tokens may appear by some hardwired expansion function. + +However, \emph{named tokens} may get into \TeX's mouth +also by \emph{expansion}, never having been drawn by tokenization +and not being hardwired. This happens by the `\csname' name construct. +The input \emph{code} may contain +\[`\csname tupni\endcsname'\] +This may be converted into 7 tokens entering \TeX's mouth, +the first one being \NTOK{csname}, the last one +\NTOK{endcsname}, and five character tokens in between. +Due to some \emph{function} (which I would denote as *\code{csname}) +originally associated with the token \NTOK{csname}, +those seven tokens then are replaced by \NTOK{tupni}, +the named token whose name is `tupni'. It is not required that +the \TeX\ program knows about a token \NTOK{tupni}, +neither anybody must type \qtd{&\tupni} in any file.\footnote{These + considerations may not be essential here, + rather a draft for a paper. Using 'dowith', + one better just thinks of the arglist items one actually lists.} +\end{smallpar} + +\subsection{Arglists vs.\ Lists of Tokens---Example} +% \subsection{Arglists and 'dowith' \TeX nically} +% In the \TeX nical sense, I think of arglists \emph{and their items} +% as follows. Arglists are lists (or sequences) of tokens. +% What is somewhat difficult is that the \emph{items} of a token list +% usually are \emph{tokens.} Especially, the curly braces in the code +% you type usually are converted into certain \emph{character tokens} +% that are single items of the resulting token list.\footnote{I discover +% this conceptual puzzle 2012-05-16.} +% +% The conceptual trap here may have resulted from denoting lists +% in a \emph{\Wikienref{juxtaposition}} notation. +% In Section~\ref{sec:lists-intuit}, I have written `aa' for a +% ``list" of \emph{two} items. ``List" is rather a \emph{computer science} +% term, its mathematical counterpart rather is the notion of (finite) +% \emph{sequences.} The usual \emph{mathematical} notation for a finite sequence +% writes list items surrounded by \emph{\wikienref{bracket}{brackets}} +% (round---\emph{\Wikienref{parentheses}}---seems to be more common than square, +% also \wikienref{angle brackets}{chevrons} are used). +% +% So the \emph{string} `aa' can be written more clearly---mathematically---as +% $(`a',`a')$. The trap with `\a' is that it could be \emph{either} the \emph{string} +% $(`\',`a')$ \emph{or} the one-item list $(`\a')$ of strings. +% But even in the latter case, I urge not to consider it a \emph{\TeX\ token}. +% Rather, I consider `\a' a mistaken way of referring to the +% named token \NTOK{a} whose name is the string `a' (or $(`a')$). +% (Section~\ref{sec:toks}). +% +% However, the conceptual trap about arglists and token lists +% (there must have been some ``Arglist"!\@) lurks on another level, +% as follows. Recall \TTb's notation of \chtok{<char>}{<cat>} +% for the \emph{character token} that \TeX's tokenizer forms +% from <char> in the character buffer when <char>'s category code is <cat>. +% Usually, the \emph{character} `a' is converted into the +% \emph{character token} \lttok{a}, `{' is converted into \lbtok, +% and `}' is converted into \rbtok. +% +% We are turning to some \strong{examples} and \strong{counterexamples}. +% Let us see what confusions occurred in the ``intuitive" view on +% arglists in Section~\ref{sec:arglists-intuit}. +% +% % \begin{example}{1} It +% First, it was bad in Section~\ref{sec:arglists-intuit} +% to think that `aa' is a two-item arglist. It was confused with something +% like $\lttok{a}\lttok{a}$. The latter looks like a token list---or is it an arglist? +% Both? Anyway, it is juxtaposition notation applied to tokens, +% mathematically it is $(\lttok{a},\lttok{a})$, so~\dots +% % \end{example} +% +% Now let us reconsider the ``intuitive recursive definition" of arglist. +% Or let us look at a recursive definition of \emph{token} list. +% \inlineitem{1} There is nothing wrong with saying the the empty list is +% a token list, the same holds for arglists. +% \inlineitem{2} a.~When we attach an arbitrary token to a \emph{token} list +% (at the left), the result is another token list---fine. +% There are only certain difficulties with ``handling" special token lists +% such as $\lbtok\lttok{a} = (\lbtok,\lttok{a})$. +% And the latter is \emph{not} an \emph{arglist!} \ +% b.~When we attach a \emph{named} token to an arglist (at the left), +% the result \emph{is} an \emph{arglist}.\footnote{This is +% a \emph{conjecture} only right now---2012-05-16---in which I strongly believe. +% Likewise later.} +% c.~When we attach a \emph{letter} token \lttok{<char>} to an arglist +% (at the left), the result \emph{is} an \emph{arglist}. +% d.~When we talked about ``brace groups," they seemed to be \emph{strings} +% of characters. Instead, I would like to suggest that a brace group +% is an \emph{arglist}\pdots +% When \lbtok\ is attached to the left of an arglist and \rbtok\ to the right, +% the result is an arglist---this is what I would call a ``brace group"! +% e.~The \Wikienref{concatenation} of two arglists is an arglist. +% +% \begin{smallpar} +% The above notion of ``attaching" a token to a token list or an arglist +% % should be clarified, but instead of a general definition in terms of +% % ``words" of formal languages, examples may suffice here and now.\footnote{2012-05-16.} +% should be clarified. Attaching an item $j$ at the left of a list $\lambda$ +% is the same as concatenating the one-item list $(j)$ with $\lambda$\pdots +% but the English \wikienref{append}{Wikipedia} seems to explain concatenation by +% \emph{appending}. As we \emph{remove} items one-by-one from the \emph{left} +% (beginning) of a list, I prefer the inverse \emph{prepending} items as basic operation +% for building lists---cf.\ \Wikienref{CAR and CDR}. +% \end{smallpar} +% +% We won't complete a formal (recursive) definition of arglist here and +% now.\footnote{2012-05-16.} Just observe that ``brace groups" +% make the difference between token lists and arglists. +% Recall that an ``item" of an arglist ``operationally" is defined +% as something that a one-parameter macro removes. +% Such a macro removes certain single tokens +% (space tokens not among them)---and entire ``brace groups"! +% Especially, consider \[\lbtok\rbtok\]%%%. +% Actually, this is another ambiguous notation. +% If it refers to $(\lbtok,\rbtok)$, it is a \emph{token} list, +% not an arglist. If it refers to $(\lbtok\rbtok)$---it should +% better refer to $((\lbtok,\rbtok))$, which is a +% \emph{one-item arglist} whose only item is the former two-item token list! +% +%% <- 2012/05/17b -> +Let us reconsider the examples from Sections~\ref{sec:lists-intuit} +and~\ref{sec:arglists-intuit}, and pack them into a single example. +If you type a file line +\begin{equation} + `a a\a{a}' +\end{equation} +(\emph{eight} keystrokes), +it should usually be converted into this \emph{seven}-item list +of (five) tokens: +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:toks} + \lttok{a}\;\sptok\;\lttok{a}\;\NTOK{a}\;\lbtok\;\lttok{a}\;\rbtok +\end{equation} +---with notation from Section~\ref{sec:toks} and +\TTb's notation \chtok{<char>}{<cat>} +for the \emph{character token} that \TeX's tokenizer forms +from <char> in the character buffer when <char>'s category code is <cat>. + +It turns out that the token list in \ref{eq:toks} +provides an arglist of \emph{four} items: The token \lttok{a} +at the first and third place, the named token \NTOK{a}, and the entire +token list $\lbtok\lttok{a}\rbtok$ as a single item---a ``brace group." +The space token is ignored.\footnote{\TTbp.~201: ``\TeX\ doesn't use +single spaces as undelimited arguments."} + +You can try this after `\renewcommand{\a}{A}'\footnote{Otherwise + \cs{a} is a one-parameter macro that breaks 'dowith''s control.} +with 'dowith': +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:sample-code} + `\DoWith\typein a a\a{a}\StopDoing' +\end{equation} +Then \LaTeX\ shows `a', `a', `A' from `\a', and another `a' from within +the braces---`\typein' (as any macro with arguments) removes them. + +% \show\a +% \a{a} +\renewcommand*{\a}{A} +% {\MakeNormalHere\# \newcommand*{\TypeOut}[1]{\typein{#1}} +% \global\let\TypeOut\TypeOut} +% \let\TypeOut\typein +% \let\TypeOut\typeout +% \DoWith\TypeOut a a\a{a}\StopDoing +% \DoWith\typein a a\a{a}\StopDoing +% { %%% \tracingmacros=1 \tracingonline=1 +% \MakeNormalHere\# \AssignCatCodeTo{2}\] +% \DoWith\typein #a\a{a]\StopDoing} + +I have avoided saying \ref{eq:toks} \emph{were} an arglist of 4 items. +The mathematical basic way of writing lists---understood as finite +\emph{\wikienref{sequence}{sequences}}---as ``commma-separated lists" +within \wikienref{bracket}{brackets} may clarify the difference +(that the \Wikienref{juxtaposition} notation tends to conceal). +The \emph{token} list is +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:toks,} + (\lttok{a}, \sptok, \lttok{a}, \NTOK{a}, \lbtok, \lttok{a}, \rbtok) +\end{equation} +while the list of macro arguments is +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:args} + (\lttok{a}, \lttok{a}, \NTOK{a}, (\lbtok, \lttok{a}, \rbtok)). +\end{equation} +\ref{eq:toks} or \ref{eq:toks,} simply is \emph{not} an arglist +(since neither \lbtok\ nor \rbtok\ can be a macro argument), +and the arglist \ref{eq:args} ``provided" by the list of tokens +is \emph{not} a list of \emph{tokens}---its final item is a +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} +\begin{smallpar} +To write token lists easier and hopefully easier to read, +I would suggest writing \qtd{.<char>} for the character token +that the tokenizer ``usually" forms from character <char>, i.e., +adding the \emph{standard} category code as in \TTb\ (page~37). +Then \ref{eq:toks} would read\footnote{See Section~\ref{sec:toks} for the question mark.} +\begin{equation} + .&a\,.\codesp\,.&a\,\ntok{a}\,.\codelb\,.&a\,.\coderb +\end{equation} +and the corresponding arglist is +\begin{equation} + (.&a,.&a,\ntok{a},(.\codelb\,.&a\,.\coderb)) +\end{equation} +In ``retrospect," the result of tokenizing \ref{eq:toks} should be +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:retro} + \ntok{DoWith}\,\ntok{typein}\, + .&a\,.\codesp\,.&a\,\ntok{a}\,.\codelb\,.&a\,.\coderb\, + \ntok{StopDoing} +\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 +\end{equation} +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 +required by our definition of `\DoWith'. A few moments later, +the token buffer's content will just be\footnote{If you use + \cs{DoWithAllOf&\typein\codeLB a\codeSP a&\a\codeLB a\codeRB\codeRB} + 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{expandafter}\,\ntok{typein}\,\ntok{fi} +\end{equation} +Next $\ntok{typein}.&a$ 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, +the remaining \ntok{expandafter} tokens and the \ntok{fi} will be +removed from the character buffer, and it contains only +\begin{equation} + \ntok{DoWith}\,\ntok{typein} +\end{equation} +Another token is ordered from the tokenizer to provide a second +argument for expanding \ntok{DoWith}. The token .\codesp\ comes in, +but that doesn't serve as a macro argument. It is removed, and the +next token is .&a. The same story as before happens, until the +named token \ntok{a} is found\pdots +\end{smallpar} + +\subsection{Summary of Possible Arglist Items} +\begin{smallpar} +For $0\leq i\leq 15$, let $\Chi_i$ be the set of character tokens +of category code $i$. $\Chi_1$ is the set of tokens working like +$\lbtok$, and $\Chi_2$ is the set of tokens working like $\rbtok$. + +Let $E$ be the set $\{3,4,6,7,8,11,12,13\}$. +These numbers are the category codes for +\meta{math}, \meta{align}, \meta{parameter}, \meta{super}, \meta{sub}, +\meta{letter}, \meta{other}, \meta{active} respectively. +Let $\Chi_E$ be the set of character tokens of category code in $E$ +(so $\Chi_E=\bigcup_{i\in E}\Chi_i$). + +Let $\circ$ be the \emph{concatenation} operation among token lists.\footnote{% + %% 2012/05/18 + TODO: Define for representations by maps, or: + ``Concatenation is about as basic as natural numbers and is + understood in terms of axioms rather than by a definition.''---See + notes from 2011 (even with attempts with \Wikienref{Category theory}) +% the \wikienref{Sequence}{English} + the English Wikipedia for + \wikienref{Sequence}{sequences}---\wikideref{Folge (Mathematik)}{German} + article too much restricted to maps.} + +The following kinds of token lists form a single arglist item, +i.e., can serve as an argument for an undelimited parameter: +\begin{enumerate} + \item a \emph{named} token, or the single-token list consisting of it, + if you prefer that; + \item a \emph{character} token from $\Chi_E$ or the list consisting of it; + \item a \emph{brace group.} + That is a token list meeting the following conditions: + \inlineitem{1} its \emph{first} token is in $\Chi_1$, + \inlineitem{2} its \emph{last} token is in $\Chi_2$, + \inlineitem{3} it has as many occurrences of tokens from $\Chi_1$ as from $\Chi_2$, + \inlineitem{4} if it is split as $\lambda\circ\rho$, there are not + more $\Chi_2$ occurrences in $\lambda$ than $\Chi_1$ occurrences in $\rho$ + (``don't close before opening"). +\end{enumerate} +The second claim can be checked with +\begin{equation} + `\DoWith\typein$#^_a1~\StopDoing' +\end{equation} +% \begingroup +% \def\a{A}\MakeNormalHere\# +% \DoWith\typein$# ^_a1~\StopDoing +% \DoWith\typein#1\StopDoing +% \endgroup +as to what works. +(The claim is not affected by one or two surprises.)\footnote{Moreover, + \cs{DoWith&\typein&\StopDoing} tells something about + ``parameter tokens."} +Characters with different category codes +either are not converted into a character token\footnote{\TTbp.~47.} +or are not accepted as macro arguments. The latter applies to ``brace" tokens +in $\Chi_1$, $\Chi_2$ and to the single space token \sptok. + +As to \emph{``brace groups"}, the third and fourth condition above +are intended to say that what is between the two outer tokens +is $\langle$balanced text$\rangle$ in the sense of \TTbp p.~275f. and~385; +i.e., for two tokens $a$, $b$ and a token list $\beta$, +$(a)\circ\beta\circ(b)$ is a brace group exactly if $a$ is from $\Chi_1$, +$b$ is from $\Chi_2$, and $\beta$ is $\langle$balanced text$\rangle$. +The conditions are more formal than what I can find in \TTb, +but still they don't give me an idea of all possibities. +This should be improved by the following recursive definition: + +\begin{trivlist}\item +B1.~The empty list is balanced text. +B2.~For any token $t$ not in $\Chi_1$ or $\Chi_2$, + the single-item token list $(t)$ is balanced text. + (Such a token is either a \emph{named} token or a + \emph{character} token from $\Chi_E$ or \emph{the space token}~\sptok.) +B3.~If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are balanced texts, + then $\alpha\circ\beta$ is balanced text. +B4.~If $\beta$ is balanced text, + $a$ is from $\Chi_1$, and $b$ is from $\Chi_2$, + then $(a)\circ\beta\circ(b)$ is balanced text. + (This is a brace group, and the only way of getting a brace group.) +B5.~Nothing else is balanced text. +\end{trivlist} + +In other words, a token list is a brace group if and only if +it is balanced text and starts with a token from $\Chi_1$ +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} + +% 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. +% +% Especially, we have (\meta{i})~lists of \emph{characters} that +% the \emph{\TeX} program recieves from files and +% (\meta{ii})~lists of so-called \emph{tokens} +% that the \TeX\ program forms from the incoming list of characters +% and that it works on. +% +% There are \emph{more} kinds of lists that \TeX\ works on. +% Here we are dealing with ``\TeX's mouth."\footnote{Cf.\ documentation +% of the \ctanpkgref{bitelist} package.} +% \TeX's mouth processes tokens formed from character input. +% It may turn a list `<toks-a><toks_b><toks-c>' of tokens +% into a list `<toks-a><toks-B><toks-c>', i.e., +% replace <toks-b> by <toks-B>---by so-called ``expansion". +% The result may be subject to expansion as well. +% When nothing is left to be expanded, results are passed to another, +% more interior subprocessor of \TeX. This one is deeper than \TeX's mouth, +% we are not concerned with that here. +% +% Not \emph{all} of those tokens in ``\TeX's mouth" are formed +% (``directly") from input characters. +% Rather, some \cs{csname} function may form \emph{new} tokens +% from other tokens in \TeX's mouth---and place them there again. +% This way characters `\csname a\endcsname' you type may just work like +% `\a'. +% +% It is difficult to tell on the \emph{character level} what the +% present package does. The relation between incoming characters +% and resulting tokens can hardly be explained by a single sentence or so. +% However, <cmd> here refers to a command <macro> with a single +% undelimited macro. More precisely, a certain character sequence +% (``string") in the code you type, will be converted into a TODO +% +% \subsection{Separators} +% TODO +% +% \subsection{Iterators and \TeX's Mouth} +% TODO +% \section{Similar Commands in other Packages} -The \CtanPkgRef{etex}{$\varepsilon$-TeX}-related %% e->... 2012/05/09 +%% <- section again 2012/05/17b +\subsection{``Heavy" Packages} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b +The \CtanPkgRef{etex}{$\varepsilon$-TeX}-related %% e->... 2012/05/09 packages \ctanpkgref{etextools} (Florent Chervet), \ctanpkgref{etoolbox} (Philipp Lehman), and \ctanpkgref{texapi} (Paul Isambert) seem to include and @@ -80,11 +731,32 @@ like the few that are here.\footnote{\ctanpkgref{arrayjobx} provides somewhat ``exotic" handling of ``lists".} %% 2012/05/10 (I~do not want to load that much.) +\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 -comma-separated lists (such as lists of options). +\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. +However, when \LaTeX\ analyzes such lists (in ``\TeX's mouth"), +it uses representations by \emph{character tokens} of them. + +%% moved here 2012/05/17b: +% %% 2011/11/10: +% Also Heiko Oberdiek's \ctanpkgref{zref} deals with ``lists" of +% ``properties" of ``entities," +%% 2011/11/11: comma separated! +%% 2012/05/09f.: +The more recent \ctanpkgref{lmake} +(Shengjun Pan) %% 2012/05/18 +provides a key-value syntax for printing lists of +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{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 @@ -95,8 +767,18 @@ 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). +``Expandability" 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. +Assignments happen somewhere \emph{behind} ``\TeX's mouth." +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 Niepraksch, Herbert +\ctanpkgref{multido} (Timothy Van Zandt, Rolf Nie\-praksch, Herbert Vo\ss), and \ctanpkgref{xfor} (Nicola Talbot)? 'xfor' is just a reimplementation of `\@for'. @@ -111,10 +793,14 @@ This is essentially not needed when a list literally is 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 and a macro parameter may have been -a good reason. +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. -Commands like `\DoWith' also save tokens thinking of list macros +\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} which may be used as a \emph{command} to be applied to the list elements. One example is @@ -137,6 +823,7 @@ and then \[`\DoWithAllIn\@makeother\specials'\] `latex.ltx' uses `\@elt' instead of `\do' for its own list macros. +\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 @@ -160,24 +847,26 @@ that (allegedly) is behind your enumeration. \ \meta{Example:} ---\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: In \LaTeX's \ctanpkgref{tools} bundle, \ctanpkgref{xspace} -has a list macro `\@xpspace@exceptions@tlp' without separators. +%% add. 2012/05/18: +was developed in the nineties by David Carlisle. +It had a rather fixed exception list implemented by a deeply +nested conditional. In 2004 Morton H\o gholm joined, +and now 'xspace' has a list macro +`\@xspace@exceptions@tlp' %% was xpspace 2012/05/17b +without separators. It is handled like here, except that it ``breaks" the loop when an item is found that applies. -% %% 2011/11/10: -% Also Heiko Oberdiek's \ctanpkgref{zref} deals with ``lists" of -% ``properties" of ``entities," -%% 2011/11/11: comma separated! - -%% 2012/05/09f.: -The more recent \ctanpkgref{lmake} provides a key-value syntax -for printing lists of complex mathematical expressions easily -(using some assignments) -as well as defining commands according to a pattern from a list. +%% add. 2012/05/17bf.: +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 %% 2011/11/03 + \pagebreak %% 2012/05/17b \section{Implementation} %% 2012/05/10 +\label{sec:implement} \subsection{Package File Header (Legalese)} %% sub 2012/05/10 \input{dowith.doc} \end{document} @@ -192,3 +881,14 @@ VERSION HISTORY 2012/05/10 "iterator", \MDkeywords, \hypersetup, Legalize -> Legalese, "Related packages", tighter sectioning +2012/05/14 for v0.21 spurious space in title fixed +2012/05/14b r0.21a another keyword +2012/05/15 abstract: why expandable +2012/05/16 discussion much extended; + stored separately before reworking +2012/05/16b r0.21b reworking ... many mistakes! +2012/05/17 updating date, was 2012/05/14 before! + and from 2012/05/14b onwards it should + have been r0.21a; storing again, + renaming dir.s ... +2012/05/17bf. r0.21c reducing text ... diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex index 0db90229e0a..6e2649ba5c6 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ +\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/05/14 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt] \RequirePackage{nicefilelist} \MFfieldtemplate{f-base}{dowithxx} \RequirePackage{myfilist} -\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/12/10 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt] \EmptyFileList %%% [readprov.sty,myfilist.sty] %% packages: \ReadPackageInfos{dowith} @@ -11,4 +11,5 @@ \ReadPackageInfos{fifinddo,makedoc,niceverb} \ReadFileInfos{makedoc.cfg,mdoccorr.cfg} \ReadFileInfos{srcfiles} +\ReadFileInfos{dowith.RLS} \ListInfos[SrcFILEs.txt] diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..da6e1e7b0a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +\ProvidesFile{dowith.RLS} %% RELEASE INFO + [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.] +% [2012/05/10 r0.2 first on CTAN] + diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty index 89e34b74d3c..346af7f57d6 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{2011/11/19} \def\fileversion{v0.2} +\def\filedate{2012/05/14} \def\fileversion{v0.21} %% Copyright (C) 2011 Uwe Lueck, %% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu %% -- author-maintained in the sense of LPPL below -- @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ %% == Proceeding without \LaTeX == %% A little \LaTeX\ as in Bernd Raichle's %% 2011/11/19 %% \CtanPkgRef{ngerman}{ngerman.sty}: +%% %% moved 2 lines here 2012/05/14 v0.21: +\chardef\atcode=\catcode`\@ +\catcode`\@=11 % \makeatletter \begingroup\expandafter\expandafter\expandafter\endgroup %% I need `\ProvidesPackage' for \ctanpkgref{fileinfo}, %% my package version tools. @@ -44,8 +47,6 @@ \fi { \ProvidesPackage{\filename}[\filedate\space \fileversion\space \fileinfo] } -\chardef\atcode=\catcode`\@ -\catcode`\@=11 % \makeatletter %% %% == Applying a Command == %% 2011/11/07 %% === Core === @@ -190,3 +191,5 @@ v0.2 2011/11/02 simpler, documented 2011/11/07 \TestListMacroForToken, \InListMacroProvide; doc.: \pagebreak, structure 2011/11/19 modified LaTeX supplements +v0.21 2012/05/14 fix for "generic" and `typeoutfileinfo': + @ before ...! |