Can I have a delimited macro with a literal # in the parameter text?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







7















I'm trying to define a macro which grabs everything until the next # (parameter token).

My twisted imagination wants something like this:



deftest#1###2{(#1)[#2]}
test hello#{world}


to grab hello in #1 (delimited by #) and world in #2 (brace delimited) and then print



(hello)[world]


However I'm failing (miserably) because no matter what combination of ## I try, TeX yells back:



! Parameters must be numbered consecutively.
<to be read again>
##
l.1 deftest#1##
#2{(#1)[#2]}
?


so I guess that simply writing down the # in there is not the way to go.



Is it possible somehow to have a #-delimited macro?










share|improve this question























  • why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:33











  • @DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:38













  • it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:45











  • "Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

    – Ulrich Diez
    May 17 at 20:26













  • @UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 20:35


















7















I'm trying to define a macro which grabs everything until the next # (parameter token).

My twisted imagination wants something like this:



deftest#1###2{(#1)[#2]}
test hello#{world}


to grab hello in #1 (delimited by #) and world in #2 (brace delimited) and then print



(hello)[world]


However I'm failing (miserably) because no matter what combination of ## I try, TeX yells back:



! Parameters must be numbered consecutively.
<to be read again>
##
l.1 deftest#1##
#2{(#1)[#2]}
?


so I guess that simply writing down the # in there is not the way to go.



Is it possible somehow to have a #-delimited macro?










share|improve this question























  • why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:33











  • @DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:38













  • it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:45











  • "Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

    – Ulrich Diez
    May 17 at 20:26













  • @UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 20:35














7












7








7


1






I'm trying to define a macro which grabs everything until the next # (parameter token).

My twisted imagination wants something like this:



deftest#1###2{(#1)[#2]}
test hello#{world}


to grab hello in #1 (delimited by #) and world in #2 (brace delimited) and then print



(hello)[world]


However I'm failing (miserably) because no matter what combination of ## I try, TeX yells back:



! Parameters must be numbered consecutively.
<to be read again>
##
l.1 deftest#1##
#2{(#1)[#2]}
?


so I guess that simply writing down the # in there is not the way to go.



Is it possible somehow to have a #-delimited macro?










share|improve this question














I'm trying to define a macro which grabs everything until the next # (parameter token).

My twisted imagination wants something like this:



deftest#1###2{(#1)[#2]}
test hello#{world}


to grab hello in #1 (delimited by #) and world in #2 (brace delimited) and then print



(hello)[world]


However I'm failing (miserably) because no matter what combination of ## I try, TeX yells back:



! Parameters must be numbered consecutively.
<to be read again>
##
l.1 deftest#1##
#2{(#1)[#2]}
?


so I guess that simply writing down the # in there is not the way to go.



Is it possible somehow to have a #-delimited macro?







macros tex-core






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked May 17 at 11:25









Phelype OleinikPhelype Oleinik

29.5k64998




29.5k64998













  • why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:33











  • @DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:38













  • it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:45











  • "Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

    – Ulrich Diez
    May 17 at 20:26













  • @UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 20:35



















  • why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:33











  • @DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:38













  • it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 11:45











  • "Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

    – Ulrich Diez
    May 17 at 20:26













  • @UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 20:35

















why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 11:33





why the # not simply test hello{world} ? :-)

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 11:33













@DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 11:38







@DavidCarlisle I was trying to scan the parameter text of a macro looking for its arguments one by one.

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 11:38















it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 11:45





it's hard (not really possible) to even find out how many arguments a macro has, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/305806/…

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 11:45













"Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

– Ulrich Diez
May 17 at 20:26







"Scan parameter text of a macro" -- if this means evaluating the result of meaningmacro: With meaning you don't have information about category codes. The meaning of the following macros looks the same but the 1st one does process two args and the 2nd one has just a delimiter and does not process args: 1) defmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} 2) catcode`#=12relaxdefmacro#1#2{#1 text #2} . Also, you are not bound to using hashes for denoting args. You can use any character after assigning catcode 6 to it. You can also use control-sequences/active chars let equal to catcode-6-chars.

– Ulrich Diez
May 17 at 20:26















@UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 20:35





@UlrichDiez Hm, now I see I did not phrase my question properly. What I wanted to achieve (and already changed my mind) was to scan a definition before the actual definition took place (something like scandefdeftest#1{something with #1}), not with meaning, so the hashes do have catcode 6 and, in this case, it doesn't matter which character they are because TeX will not allow this. Thanks for the input, though :-)

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 20:35










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














The TeXbook, page 203, says in the first doubly dangerous paragraph




Now that we have seen a number of examples, let’s look at the precise rules that govern TeX macros. Definitions have the general form



def⟨control sequence⟩⟨parameter text⟩{⟨replacement text⟩}



where the ⟨parameter text⟩ contains no braces, and where all occurrences of { and } in the ⟨replacement text⟩ are properly nested. Furthermore the # symbol has a special significance: In the ⟨parameter text⟩, the first appearance of # must be followed by 1, the next by 2, and so on; up to nine #’s are allowed.




There is no way for the parameter text to contain a (category code 6) #, because of the rule stated above.



As usual in the TeXbook, this is not the complete truth; in the second doubly dangerous bend on page 204 one reads




A special extension is allowed to these rules: If the very last character of the ⟨parameter text⟩ is #, so that this # is immediately followed by {, TeX will behave as if the { had been inserted at the right end of both the parameter text and the replacement text. For example, if you say ‘defa#1#{hbox to #1}’, the subsequent text ‘a3pt{x}’ will expand to ‘hbox to 3pt{x}’, because the argument
of a is delimited by a left brace.




However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.






share|improve this answer


























  • Oh, must be followed :/

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:01











  • @PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:07






  • 1





    although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:11













  • @DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:15











  • There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:20



















4














You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the # while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:



enter image description here



deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}

test hello#{world}

bye





share|improve this answer
























  • “You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:58











  • @PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:13












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491296%2fcan-i-have-a-delimited-macro-with-a-literal-in-the-parameter-text%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














The TeXbook, page 203, says in the first doubly dangerous paragraph




Now that we have seen a number of examples, let’s look at the precise rules that govern TeX macros. Definitions have the general form



def⟨control sequence⟩⟨parameter text⟩{⟨replacement text⟩}



where the ⟨parameter text⟩ contains no braces, and where all occurrences of { and } in the ⟨replacement text⟩ are properly nested. Furthermore the # symbol has a special significance: In the ⟨parameter text⟩, the first appearance of # must be followed by 1, the next by 2, and so on; up to nine #’s are allowed.




There is no way for the parameter text to contain a (category code 6) #, because of the rule stated above.



As usual in the TeXbook, this is not the complete truth; in the second doubly dangerous bend on page 204 one reads




A special extension is allowed to these rules: If the very last character of the ⟨parameter text⟩ is #, so that this # is immediately followed by {, TeX will behave as if the { had been inserted at the right end of both the parameter text and the replacement text. For example, if you say ‘defa#1#{hbox to #1}’, the subsequent text ‘a3pt{x}’ will expand to ‘hbox to 3pt{x}’, because the argument
of a is delimited by a left brace.




However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.






share|improve this answer


























  • Oh, must be followed :/

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:01











  • @PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:07






  • 1





    although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:11













  • @DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:15











  • There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:20
















4














The TeXbook, page 203, says in the first doubly dangerous paragraph




Now that we have seen a number of examples, let’s look at the precise rules that govern TeX macros. Definitions have the general form



def⟨control sequence⟩⟨parameter text⟩{⟨replacement text⟩}



where the ⟨parameter text⟩ contains no braces, and where all occurrences of { and } in the ⟨replacement text⟩ are properly nested. Furthermore the # symbol has a special significance: In the ⟨parameter text⟩, the first appearance of # must be followed by 1, the next by 2, and so on; up to nine #’s are allowed.




There is no way for the parameter text to contain a (category code 6) #, because of the rule stated above.



As usual in the TeXbook, this is not the complete truth; in the second doubly dangerous bend on page 204 one reads




A special extension is allowed to these rules: If the very last character of the ⟨parameter text⟩ is #, so that this # is immediately followed by {, TeX will behave as if the { had been inserted at the right end of both the parameter text and the replacement text. For example, if you say ‘defa#1#{hbox to #1}’, the subsequent text ‘a3pt{x}’ will expand to ‘hbox to 3pt{x}’, because the argument
of a is delimited by a left brace.




However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.






share|improve this answer


























  • Oh, must be followed :/

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:01











  • @PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:07






  • 1





    although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:11













  • @DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:15











  • There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:20














4












4








4







The TeXbook, page 203, says in the first doubly dangerous paragraph




Now that we have seen a number of examples, let’s look at the precise rules that govern TeX macros. Definitions have the general form



def⟨control sequence⟩⟨parameter text⟩{⟨replacement text⟩}



where the ⟨parameter text⟩ contains no braces, and where all occurrences of { and } in the ⟨replacement text⟩ are properly nested. Furthermore the # symbol has a special significance: In the ⟨parameter text⟩, the first appearance of # must be followed by 1, the next by 2, and so on; up to nine #’s are allowed.




There is no way for the parameter text to contain a (category code 6) #, because of the rule stated above.



As usual in the TeXbook, this is not the complete truth; in the second doubly dangerous bend on page 204 one reads




A special extension is allowed to these rules: If the very last character of the ⟨parameter text⟩ is #, so that this # is immediately followed by {, TeX will behave as if the { had been inserted at the right end of both the parameter text and the replacement text. For example, if you say ‘defa#1#{hbox to #1}’, the subsequent text ‘a3pt{x}’ will expand to ‘hbox to 3pt{x}’, because the argument
of a is delimited by a left brace.




However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.






share|improve this answer















The TeXbook, page 203, says in the first doubly dangerous paragraph




Now that we have seen a number of examples, let’s look at the precise rules that govern TeX macros. Definitions have the general form



def⟨control sequence⟩⟨parameter text⟩{⟨replacement text⟩}



where the ⟨parameter text⟩ contains no braces, and where all occurrences of { and } in the ⟨replacement text⟩ are properly nested. Furthermore the # symbol has a special significance: In the ⟨parameter text⟩, the first appearance of # must be followed by 1, the next by 2, and so on; up to nine #’s are allowed.




There is no way for the parameter text to contain a (category code 6) #, because of the rule stated above.



As usual in the TeXbook, this is not the complete truth; in the second doubly dangerous bend on page 204 one reads




A special extension is allowed to these rules: If the very last character of the ⟨parameter text⟩ is #, so that this # is immediately followed by {, TeX will behave as if the { had been inserted at the right end of both the parameter text and the replacement text. For example, if you say ‘defa#1#{hbox to #1}’, the subsequent text ‘a3pt{x}’ will expand to ‘hbox to 3pt{x}’, because the argument
of a is delimited by a left brace.




However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 17 at 12:15

























answered May 17 at 11:59









egregegreg

748k8919583301




748k8919583301













  • Oh, must be followed :/

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:01











  • @PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:07






  • 1





    although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:11













  • @DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:15











  • There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:20



















  • Oh, must be followed :/

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:01











  • @PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:07






  • 1





    although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:11













  • @DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

    – egreg
    May 17 at 12:15











  • There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 12:20

















Oh, must be followed :/

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:01





Oh, must be followed :/

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:01













@PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

– egreg
May 17 at 12:07





@PhelypeOleinik Yes, not the weaker “should” or “ought to”.

– egreg
May 17 at 12:07




1




1





although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 12:11







although (not unusually for the texbook) that rule isn't actually completely true (you can follow the last # by { rather than a digit). So that dangerous bend on its own wouldn't be enough to confirm it wasn't possible (but it isn't possible:-)

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 12:11















@DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

– egreg
May 17 at 12:15





@DavidCarlisle Yes, I added the relevant quotation.

– egreg
May 17 at 12:15













There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20





There is module 476 in tex.pdf, which I sort of understand (because I already know what it does (sort of)). It first looks for a left brace, if it's not then steps a counter t and if the grabbed token isn't equal to t the error message in the question is printed.

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20













4














You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the # while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:



enter image description here



deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}

test hello#{world}

bye





share|improve this answer
























  • “You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:58











  • @PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:13
















4














You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the # while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:



enter image description here



deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}

test hello#{world}

bye





share|improve this answer
























  • “You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:58











  • @PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:13














4












4








4







You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the # while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:



enter image description here



deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}

test hello#{world}

bye





share|improve this answer













You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the # while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:



enter image description here



deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}

test hello#{world}

bye






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 17 at 11:40









David CarlisleDavid Carlisle

510k4311591916




510k4311591916













  • “You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:58











  • @PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:13



















  • “You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

    – Phelype Oleinik
    May 17 at 11:58











  • @PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

    – David Carlisle
    May 17 at 12:13

















“You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 11:58





“You can't really do” is acceptable (although frustrating). Is there anywhere that explains this (not that I'm doubting you ;-)?

– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 11:58













@PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 12:13





@PhelypeOleinik egreg's answer shows some sort of documentation, although as i commented there the texbook often"clarifies" rules later so it is hard to use it as a definitive source, there is always tex-the-program.....

– David Carlisle
May 17 at 12:13


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491296%2fcan-i-have-a-delimited-macro-with-a-literal-in-the-parameter-text%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029