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;
}
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
|
show 8 more comments
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
why the#
not simplytest 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 ofmeaningmacro
: Withmeaning
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 likescandefdeftest#1{something with #1}
), not withmeaning
, 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
|
show 8 more comments
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
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
macros tex-core
asked May 17 at 11:25
Phelype OleinikPhelype Oleinik
29.5k64998
29.5k64998
why the#
not simplytest 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 ofmeaningmacro
: Withmeaning
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 likescandefdeftest#1{something with #1}
), not withmeaning
, 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
|
show 8 more comments
why the#
not simplytest 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 ofmeaningmacro
: Withmeaning
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 likescandefdeftest#1{something with #1}
), not withmeaning
, 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
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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 by1
, the next by2
, 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
ofa
is delimited by a left brace.
However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.
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 intex.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 countert
and if the grabbed token isn't equal tot
the error message in the question is printed.
– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20
|
show 3 more comments
You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the #
while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:
deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}
test hello#{world}
bye
“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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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 by1
, the next by2
, 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
ofa
is delimited by a left brace.
However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.
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 intex.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 countert
and if the grabbed token isn't equal tot
the error message in the question is printed.
– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20
|
show 3 more comments
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 by1
, the next by2
, 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
ofa
is delimited by a left brace.
However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.
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 intex.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 countert
and if the grabbed token isn't equal tot
the error message in the question is printed.
– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20
|
show 3 more comments
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 by1
, the next by2
, 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
ofa
is delimited by a left brace.
However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.
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 by1
, the next by2
, 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
ofa
is delimited by a left brace.
However, this special extension has no favorable consequence towards your aim.
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 intex.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 countert
and if the grabbed token isn't equal tot
the error message in the question is printed.
– Phelype Oleinik
May 17 at 12:20
|
show 3 more comments
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 intex.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 countert
and if the grabbed token isn't equal tot
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
|
show 3 more comments
You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the #
while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:
deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}
test hello#{world}
bye
“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
add a comment |
You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the #
while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:
deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}
test hello#{world}
bye
“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
add a comment |
You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the #
while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:
deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}
test hello#{world}
bye
You can't really do what you ask, but you can ignore the #
while parsing the arguments, then get rid of it:
deftest#1#{deftmp##1{#11}zz}
defzz#1{(tmp{})[#1]}
test hello#{world}
bye
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
add a comment |
“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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
why the
#
not simplytest 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
: Withmeaning
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 withmeaning
, 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