From 95bec054254407d74fec37e47245e6fcbb8a9aff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Karl Berry Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:32 +0000 Subject: dowith (21may12) git-svn-id: svn://tug.org/texlive/trunk@26552 c570f23f-e606-0410-a88d-b1316a301751 --- Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf | Bin 472739 -> 509554 bytes .../texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt | 10 +- Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex | 268 ++++++++++++++++----- .../texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex | 5 +- Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS | 3 +- Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty | 6 +- 6 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) (limited to 'Master') diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf index cd51fbb17a5..ed121b3ff22 100644 Binary files a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf and b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/dowith/dowith.pdf differ diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt index 98d2b808e05..04dfe2f6d69 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/SrcFILEs.txt @@ -1,16 +1,16 @@ *File List* - dowith.sty 2012/05/14 v0.21 simple list loop (UL) - dowith.tex 2012/05/18 -- documenting dowith.sty + dowith.sty 2012/05/19 v0.21a simple list loop (UL) + dowith.tex 2012/05/20 -- documenting dowith.sty fifinddo.sty 2012/01/20 v0.51 filtering TeX(t) files by TeX (UL) makedoc.sty 2011/11/19 v0.42 TeX input from *.sty (UL) niceverb.sty 2011/12/05 v0.44 minimize doc markup (UL) makedoc.cfg 2012/05/10 -- documentation settings mdoccorr.cfg 2011/12/03 -- makedoc local typographical corrections -srcfiles.tex 2012/05/14 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt - dowith.RLS 2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS +srcfiles.tex 2012/05/20 -- file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt + dowith.RLS 2012/05/20 r0.21d v0.21a discussing other cmds *********** - List made at 2012/05/18, 12:16 + List made at 2012/05/20, 21:55 from script file srcfiles.tex diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex index 66b1dfca0ee..f3c173b5287 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/dowith.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/18 documenting dowith.sty] +\ProvidesFile{dowith.tex}[2012/05/20 documenting dowith.sty] \title{%%%\kern-\baselineskip \textsf{\huge dowith.sty}\\---\\Apply Command to % Elements of Lists without Separators\,---\,%%% 2012/05/14 @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ \newcommand*{\codelb}{\code\codeLB} \newcommand*{\coderb}{\code\codeRB} \newcommand*{\codesp}{\code\codeSP} +\newcommand*{\codebd}[1]{\code{\codeLB#1\codeRB}} %% 2012/05/19 %% rm. 2012/05/17b: % \DeclareRobustCommand*{\code}[1]{% % \texttt{% @@ -119,9 +120,6 @@ However, the package can also be used with other formats, just \begin{verbatim} \input dowith.sty \end{verbatim} -The single commands that the package provides are described -\hyperref[sec:implement]{below} %% 2012/05/16 -together with their implementation. % \section{Example} @@ -139,9 +137,17 @@ together with their implementation. % or by % \[`\DoWithAllOf{\dots}'\] % +% \pagebreak %% 2012/05/19 \subsection{What It Does With What Lists} % \subsection{What It Actually Does \dots} \label{sec:lists-intuit} + +The single commands that the package provides are described +in the \hyperref[sec:implement]{implementation section} below. +What follows here is some general background about how the +commands work. +%% <- moved down from previous section, mod. 2012/05/19 + The term \qtd{list} may refer to various things and need clarification here. First of all, we are not referring to \LaTeX\ `list' environments @@ -243,7 +249,7 @@ What \TeX nically matters is what happens in ``\TeX's mouth,"\footnote{Cf.~\TTbp.~46.} as some authors have suggested a metaphor,\footnote{% Alan Jeffrey: \tugbartref{tb11-2/tb28jeffrey}{``Lists in \TeX's Mouth,"} - TUGboat Volume~11 No.~2 (1990), pp.~237--245), + TUGboat Vol.~11 (1990), No.~2, pp.~237--245), \urlhttpref{tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-2/tb28jeffrey.pdf}.} or somewhere deeper. The 'dowith' package is a tool to control those events @@ -532,6 +538,7 @@ three-item list of tokens, and a token cannot be a list of two or more tokens itself(\emph{!?}). \subsection{Another Notation and the Example's Steps} +\label{sec:steps} %% 2012/05/20 \begin{smallpar} To write token lists easier and hopefully easier to read, I would suggest writing \qtd{.} for the character token @@ -554,9 +561,13 @@ In ``retrospect," the result of tokenizing \ref{eq:toks} should be \end{equation} and the intention is that it works like \begin{equation} - \ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{typein}\ntok{a}\, + \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\, + \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\, + \ntok{typein}.\codelb \ntok{a}.\coderb\, \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb \end{equation} +(The definition of `\DoWith' in Section~\ref{sec:core} indeed adds surrounding braces, + if missing.) However, \TeX\ rather tries to work with as few tokens ahead as possible. When it finds \ntok{DoWith} and the latter's meaning is the one intended by 'dowith', it first looks for nothing more than the two arguments @@ -566,10 +577,10 @@ the token buffer's content will just be\footnote{If you use instead, the entire token sequence \ref{eq:retro} will appear in the token buffer ``at once."} \begin{equation} - \ntok{typein}.&a\,\ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{DoWith}\, + \ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb\,\ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{DoWith}\, \ntok{expandafter}\,\ntok{typein}\,\ntok{fi} \end{equation} -Next $\ntok{typein}.&a$ is expanded according to the code for +Next $\ntok{typein}.\codelb.&a.\coderb$ is expanded according to the code for `\typein' in \file{latex.ltx}. Some unexpandable tokens will emerge and be moved into the ``command buffer," and you should get a screen message with `a' and a prompt. When you have entered something, @@ -673,6 +684,45 @@ and ends with a token from $\Chi_2$.\footnote{Again, this may be more of a draft for a paper, or notes for it, than package documentation.} \end{smallpar} +\subsection{Summary: ``Commands" Usable with 'dowith'} +In the \hyperref[sec:apply]{implementation section,} +you learn about +\[`\DoWith',\quad `\DoWithAllOf',\quad + \mbox{and}\quad `\DoWithAllIn'.\] +(\LaTeX\ users may type `{}' instead.) +What s are allowed? + +\begin{enumerate} + \item All \strong{one-parameter macros} work this way, + unless there are programming mistakes outside 'dowith' + (also thinking of arguments that take over control + from 'dowith' commands before the argument list is finished). + \item \strong{Other one-parameter} ``commands" such as + \TeX\ \strong{primitives} may work---you must think of + the fact that surrounding \emph{braces} are added.\footnote{TODO: + in the future, variants not adding braces could be added.} + So the \strong{primitives} `\hbox' and `\vbox' work, + for instance. `\show' is an example that doesn't work at all, + it takes the single starting brace token and then confuses + `\DoWith'. + \item Some s taking \strong{no argument} may make sense, e.g., + for getting + \begin{enumerate} + \DoWithAllOf{\item}{{apples,}{pears,}{peaches}} + \end{enumerate} + from + \begin{quote} + &\begin{enumerate}\\ + \null\code{~~}&\DoWithAllOf{&\item}{% + \codebd{apples,}\codebd{pears,}\codebd{peaches}}\\ + &\end{enumerate} + \end{quote} + Recall that `\item' at most takes an \emph{optional} argument. + \item must \strong{not take more than one} parameter. + %% see def. \DoWith + A different package will support multi-parameter macros. +\end{enumerate} + % Rather, ``list" is a term from \Wikienref{computer science} here. % It corresponds to the notion of ``sequence" in mathematics % and to ``word" with formal languages. @@ -733,12 +783,12 @@ like the few that are here.\footnote{\ctanpkgref{arrayjobx} \subsection{Separators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b Regarding \LaTeX\ macros in `latex.ltx', the basic macro `\DoWith' of -the present package resembles `\@tfor' very much, which likewise deals -with lists without separators. By contrast, \LaTeX's `\@for' deals with +the present package resembles |\@tfor| very much, which likewise deals +with lists without separators. By contrast, \LaTeX's |\@for| deals with \emph{comma-separated} lists (such as lists of package options). With comma-separated lists, a ``string" of characters counts as an item when it is delimited by commas, or by a comma and the -list ``border", or spaces may be used as separators additionally. +list ``border," or spaces may be used as separators additionally. However, when \LaTeX\ analyzes such lists (in ``\TeX's mouth"), it uses representations by \emph{character tokens} of them. @@ -756,18 +806,104 @@ complex mathematical expressions easily (using some assignments) as well as defining commands according to a pattern from a list. Those lists are comma-separated. +\subsection{``For" Loops vs.\ ``Foreach" Loops} %% mv. up 2012/05/20 +What about \ctanpkgref{forloop} (Nick Setzer), +\ctanpkgref{multido} (Timothy Van Zandt, Rolf Nie\-praksch, Herbert +Vo\ss), and \ctanpkgref{xfor} (Nicola Talbot)? + +'xfor' is just a reimplementation of `\@for'. +'forloop' and 'multido' are more close to ``real \qtd{for} loops" +(cf.\ \wikienref{for loop}{\meta{Wikipedia}}). +Loops of the latter kind go through a certain set as well, +but such sets rather consist of \emph{numbers} and are exhausted +by incrementing (or also decrementing) variables +\wikienref{Loop counter}{(counters).} +This is essentially not needed +(neither helpful) %% 2012/05/20 +when a list literally is +\emph{enumerated}---such loops are distinguished as +\wikienref{Foreach loop}{``foreach loops."} %% 2012/05/19 + \subsection{Iterators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b -A major difference between `\DoWith' and `\@tfor' is that the latter -uses a ``loop variable" or rather ``\Wikienref{iterator}" -to which the elements of the list are -assigned. `\DoWith' does not use such a loop variable +So `\DoWith' and |\@tfor| rather provide ``foreach" loops. +A major difference between them is that the latter uses a +\wikienref{For loop}{``loop variable"} or +%%% rather %% rm. 2012/05/20 +\wikienref{Iterator}{``iterator"} to which the elements +of the list are assigned. +`\DoWith' does not use such a loop variable or such assignments and thus is ``expandable" at least when (and the elements, depending on ) are expandable. On the other hand, `\@tfor' applies some procedure to the list elements without needing a \emph{name} for the procedure (or a \emph{macro} storing the procedure). +% +I wondered whether behind \LaTeX's +`\@tfor' (and `\@for') there was an ``ideological" consideration +such as ``A loop must have a loop variable!"\pdots +% However, avoiding usage of a macro name +% (to store the ``loop body" code) %% 2012/05/18 +% and a macro parameter +% (to incorporate the list item into the body code) %% 2012/05/18 +% may have been a good reason. +%% <- 2012/05/19 -``Expandability" is essential especially within \cs{write}. +%% 2012/05/20: +Hopefully more clearly on ``loop variable" vs.\ our approach: +In order to run +\[\] +on each of a , \emph{we here} +% \[ +\begin{equation} + \mbox{define} \quad `\do' \quad \mbox{as} \quad + `#1'\;\to\;`#1' +\end{equation} +% \] +and then run `\do{}' for each in ,\footnote{Cf.~description + of procedure in terms of tokens in Section~\ref{sec:steps}.} +\begin{equation} + \mbox{always replacing}\quad `\do{}'\quad \mbox{by}\quad `\do{}\do'. +\end{equation} +(`\do' is only an example command that 'dowith' supports especially.) +% The ``received" approach from ``usual" programming languages, +% \file{latex.ltx}, and its followers is +In \file{latex.ltx} instead, we find things like +% \[ +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:tfor} + `\@tfor\@tmp:=\do{\@tmp}' +\end{equation} +% \] +where `\@tmp' is a \emph{macro} that is set to be at each +iteration of the loop, by +\begin{equation} + `\def\@tmp{}' +\end{equation} +within `\@tforloop'. After that, +\begin{equation} + \label{eq:code-tmp-code} + `\@tmp' +\end{equation} +from \ref{eq:tfor} is run.---\ref{eq:code-tmp-code} like +\ref{eq:tfor} is stored in a larger macro. `\do' in \ref{eq:tfor} +does not act as a macro, it just delimits a macro parameter +in order give a feeling of some familiar programming structure. +This organisation of macros is fine when the loop body code +is only used by the containing macro, while the 'dowith' approach +to store the ``loop body" in an own macro has been useful when +the loop body code also is used for different purposes +or when it has been introduced before I thought of using it +in a loop. +% \[\mbox{defining}\;`\@tmp'\;\mbox{as}\;\quad \mbox{and run} \quad +% `\@tmp'\] +% for each in . + +Note that this only was an example. In general, may appear +more than once in the ``loop body." + +``Expandability" by \emph{avoiding} something iterating `\def\@tmp{}' +and doing iteration in \TeX's mouth (`\do' or so must have been defined earlier) +is essential especially within \cs{write}. Assignments do not work there. A major motivation for developing 'dowith' developed with the \ctanpkgref{blog} package that \cs{write}s \acro{HTML} code. @@ -776,29 +912,6 @@ That place might be called the ``command buffer" to which the ``expansion processor" moves items from the incoming token buffer that cannot be expanded (any more). -\subsection{``For" Loops vs.\ ``Foreach" Loops} -What about \ctanpkgref{forloop} (Nick Setzer), -\ctanpkgref{multido} (Timothy Van Zandt, Rolf Nie\-praksch, Herbert -Vo\ss), and \ctanpkgref{xfor} (Nicola Talbot)? - -'xfor' is just a reimplementation of `\@for'. -'forloop' and 'multido' are more close to ``real \qtd{for} loops" -(cf.\ \wikienref{for loop}{\meta{Wikipedia}}). -Loops of the latter kind go through a certain set as well, -but such sets rather consist of \emph{numbers} and are exhausted -by incrementing (or also decrementing) variables (counters). -This is essentially not needed when a list literally is -\emph{enumerated}---such loops are distinguished as -``\wikienref{Foreach loop}{foreach loops}." %% W -> w 2012/05/10 -I wondered whether behind \LaTeX's -`\@tfor' (and `\@for') there was an ``ideological" consideration -such as ``A loop must have a loop variable!" However, -avoiding usage of a macro name -(to store the ``loop body" code) %% 2012/05/18 -and a macro parameter -(to incorporate the list item into the body code) %% 2012/05/18 -may have been a good reason. - \subsection{Separator Macros} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b Commands like `\DoWith' also could save tokens thinking of list macros (in \LaTeX/`latex.ltx') that use a \emph{separator macro} @@ -826,26 +939,36 @@ and then \subsection{Ye Olde \cs{loop}} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b %% added 2011/11/03: There also is |\loop\repeat| in Plain \TeX\ and a -refined version of it in `latex.ltx'. It is \emph{not} expandable +refined\footnote{Using Kabelschacht's suggestion, cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:kabel}} +version of it in `latex.ltx'. It is \emph{not} expandable since it starts with an assignment for `\body' (Plain \TeX) or -`\iterate' (`latex.ltx'). As to the programming structure, -it is so simple and general that you cannot immediately see -what kind of loops it addresses. However, the applications -I have seen have been ``for" or (rather) ``while" loops. -``While" loops can ``emulate" ``for" and ``foreach" loops -by having the ``incrementation" method or the ``enumeration" method in -their body. This is quite obvious for ``for" loops, not quite so for -``foreach" loops; which for practical application (in my view) means -that neither \LaTeX/\TeX's `\loop' macro nor in general ``while" loops -is/are very helpful for implementing ``foreach" loops, -as rather `\DoWith' and similar constructions are. -The reason for this is (as it seems to me) is that you -(a human being) can much more easily enumerate (``list") -the items of a list (you have in mind) than define the \emph{method} -that (allegedly) is behind your enumeration. \ \meta{Example:} -\[`\DoWithAllOf{\printsamplearea}{\red\green\blue}'\] ----\emph{how} (according to what ``method"?) did you ``proceed" from -`\red' to `\green' and from `\green' to `\blue'? +`\iterate' (`latex.ltx'), +%% add. 2012/05/20: +and then some assignments are needed to stop the loop, +such as incrementing or decrementing a \emph{counter.} +As to the programming structure, it is very simple and general, +I think any kind of loop can be implemented by this +(apart from nested loops). E.g., I realize\footnote{2012-05-20} +that even a ``foreach" loop could be implemented by managing +a list macro, e.g., using \LaTeX's internal `\@next'. +%% rm. 2012/05/20: +% that you cannot probably +% what kind of loops it addresses. However, the applications +% I have seen have been ``for" or (rather) ``while" loops. +% ``While" loops can ``emulate" ``for" and ``foreach" loops +% by having the ``incrementation" method or the ``enumeration" method in +% their body. This is quite obvious for ``for" loops, not quite so for +% ``foreach" loops; which for practical application (in my view) means +% that neither \LaTeX/\TeX's `\loop' macro nor in general ``while" loops +% is/are very helpful for implementing ``foreach" loops, +% as rather `\DoWith' and similar constructions are. +% The reason for this is (as it seems to me) is that you +% (a human being) can much more easily enumerate (``list") +% the items of a list (you have in mind) than define the \emph{method} +% that (allegedly) is behind your enumeration. \ \meta{Example:} +% \[`\DoWithAllOf{\printsamplearea}{\red\green\blue}'\] +% ---\emph{how} (according to what ``method"?) did you ``proceed" from +% `\red' to `\green' and from `\green' to `\blue'? \subsection{Without Iterator and Separators} %% add. heading 2012/05/17b %% 2011/11/07: @@ -864,11 +987,33 @@ After the ``next" token is stored by the usual \cs{futurelet}, the exception list is searched without using an iterator. Addition and removal commands are provided as well. - \pagebreak %% 2012/05/17b +% \pagebreak %% 2012/05/17b +% \newpage %% 2012/05/19 \section{Implementation} %% 2012/05/10 \label{sec:implement} \subsection{Package File Header (Legalese)} %% sub 2012/05/10 \input{dowith.doc} + +\section{Ack.: 25 Years of Kabel\-schacht's Method} %% 2012/05/20 +\label{sec:kabel} +The essential idea of 'dowith' and `\DoWith' is +\[`\if\expandafter\fi'\] +% Alan Jeffrey: \tugbartref{tb11-2/tb28jeffrey}{``Lists in \TeX's Mouth,"} +% TUGboat Vol.~11 (1990), No.~2, pp.~237--245), +% \urlhttpref{tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-2/tb28jeffrey.pdf}.} +It was described by \textsc{Alois Kabelschacht} as +\tugbartref{tb08-2/tb18kabel}{``&\expandafter\ vs. &\let\ and &\def\ + in Conditionals and a Generalization of PLAIN's &\loop"} +in TUGboat Vol.~8 (1987), No.~2, pp.~184f.\ +(a little more than one column).\foothttpurlref{tug.org/TUGboat/% + tb08-2/tb18kabel.pdf} +See some German biographical notes on Kabelschacht in the +\wikideref{Benutzer:RolteVolte/Alois_Kabelschacht}{German Wikipedia.}\foothttpurlref{%% + de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:RolteVolte/Alois\string_Kabelschacht} +It seems to me that Knuth didn't note this application of `\expandafter' +in \TTb. It was then applied in many macros of \file{latex.ltx}, +cf.~\file{source2e.pdf}. + \end{document} VERSION HISTORY @@ -892,3 +1037,8 @@ VERSION HISTORY have been r0.21a; storing again, renaming dir.s ... 2012/05/17bf. r0.21c reducing text ... +2012/05/19 r0.21d braces and commands applicable +2012/05/20 corrections, clarifications, reorder; + especially examples for `dowith' vs. + `\@tfor'; remarks about `\loop' corr.: + how to `foreach' ...; Kabelschacht diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex index 6e2649ba5c6..182905e4c3f 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/source/generic/dowith/srcfiles.tex @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ -\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/05/14 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt] -\RequirePackage{nicefilelist} +\ProvidesFile{srcfiles.tex}[2012/05/20 file infos -> SrcFILEs.txt] +\RequirePackage[r]{nicefilelist}[2012/05/20] +%% <- [r] 2012/05/20 \MFfieldtemplate{f-base}{dowithxx} \RequirePackage{myfilist} \EmptyFileList %%% [readprov.sty,myfilist.sty] diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS index da6e1e7b0a9..62006b6b3c2 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.RLS @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ \ProvidesFile{dowith.RLS} %% RELEASE INFO - [2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS] + [2012/05/20 r0.21d v0.21a discussing other cmds ] +% [2012/05/18 v0.21 r0.21c @ fix, new doc., .RLS] % [2012/05/14 r0.21 @ fix, .RLS, README/title typo...] %% <- FAILED % [2012/05/10 r0.2a corr. generic dir.] diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty index 346af7f57d6..9b2ce00c4d5 100644 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/tex/generic/dowith/dowith.sty @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ \def\filename{dowith} \def\fileinfo{simple list loop (UL)} -\def\filedate{2012/05/14} \def\fileversion{v0.21} +\def\filedate{2012/05/19} \def\fileversion{v0.21a} %% Copyright (C) 2011 Uwe Lueck, %% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu %% -- author-maintained in the sense of LPPL below -- @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ %% %% http://www.contact-ednotes.sty.de.vu %% +%% % \pagebreak %% 2012/05/19 %% == Proceeding without \LaTeX == %% A little \LaTeX\ as in Bernd Raichle's %% 2011/11/19 %% \CtanPkgRef{ngerman}{ngerman.sty}: @@ -49,7 +50,9 @@ \fileversion\space \fileinfo] } %% %% == Applying a Command == %% 2011/11/07 +%% \label{sec:apply} %% === Core === +%% \label{sec:core} %% |\DoWith{}\StopDoing| applies to all elements %% of . An element of (after tokenizing) %% may be either a single token or a group `{}'. @@ -193,3 +196,4 @@ v0.2 2011/11/02 simpler, documented 2011/11/19 modified LaTeX supplements v0.21 2012/05/14 fix for "generic" and `typeoutfileinfo': @ before ...! +v0.21a 2012/05/19 \labels sec:apply, sec:core; \pagebreak? -- cgit v1.2.3