Hi Hans, here are a few questions which I want to ask since a few days. 1. texdefinition I like start/stoptexdefinition because it makes the source for certain macros more readable than \def allows me but is there a way to use it for macros without parameters? 2. commalists Together with texdefinition I use now start/stopprocesscommalist (feature request: I need also start/stopprocessassignmentlist) but I can use the list value without the need to define a command where I specify what should happen with it \startprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...] the current list value is #1\par \stopprocesscommalist but why is there not something equivalent for the normal processcommalist because the start/stop method is not the best method when you need nested lists, something like this would be nice then (I know \doprocesscommalist is already defined): \doprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...]% {\processcommalist[x,y,z,...]% {do something with #1 and ##1}} 3. setups The various start/stopsetups environments another nice feature but what's the correct method when I want my own setup environment, should I adapt the following line from core-env to my own command \def\startsetups {\xxstartsetups\plusone \stopsetups } \let \stopsetups \relax and use method from lxml-ini to access/flush the content? 4. Mixed assignment/comma lists Are mixed lists of normal comma elements and assignments are allowed by ConTeXt’s syntax because there is a command in the source (\processassignlist) to process the non assignment values from the list? On the other side these values generate a error message on the terminal where one can read there is a missing '=' in the element and this message can't be disabled (without hacks). Kind regards, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Hi Hans,
here are a few questions which I want to ask since a few days.
1. texdefinition
I like start/stoptexdefinition because it makes the source for certain macros more readable than \def allows me but is there a way to use it for macros without parameters?
this works \starttexdefinition test {} oeps \stoptexdefinition [\test] we can consider something like: \starttexdefinition test optional,optional,argument,argument oeps \stoptexdefinition which then becomes \def\test[#1][#2]#3#4% etc but i'm only willing to support that if we can stick to reasonable definitions or even \starttexdefinition test optional:ns,argument:name oeps \stoptexdefinition which then automatically makes you a \getvariable{ns}{key} as well as \name or maybe like xml: \starttexdefinition test ns:optional,argument oeps \stoptexdefinition with then makes an \getvariable{ns}{first} and so needs a bit of thinking
2. commalists
Together with texdefinition I use now start/stopprocesscommalist (feature request: I need also start/stopprocessassignmentlist) but I can use the list value without the need to define a command where I specify what should happen with it
\startprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...] the current list value is #1\par \stopprocesscommalist
but why is there not something equivalent for the normal processcommalist because the start/stop method is not the best method when you need nested lists, something like this would be nice then (I know \doprocesscommalist is already defined):
\doprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...]% {\processcommalist[x,y,z,...]% {do something with #1 and ##1}}
hm, probably possible but not trivial (maybe not even robust) ... needs thinking (also a bit slower as we explicitly need a trick similar to the one used in dorecurse
3. setups
The various start/stopsetups environments another nice feature but what's the correct method when I want my own setup environment, should I adapt the following line from core-env to my own command
\def\startsetups {\xxstartsetups\plusone \stopsetups } \let\stopsetups \relax
and use method from lxml-ini to access/flush the content?
you mean that you want to pass an argument to a setup? (mandate in xmlsetup)
4. Mixed assignment/comma lists
Are mixed lists of normal comma elements and assignments are allowed by ConTeXt’s syntax because there is a command in the source (\processassignlist) to process the non assignment values from the list? On the other side these values generate a error message on the terminal where one can read there is a missing '=' in the element and this message can't be disabled (without hacks).
yeah, a matter of choice ... we can drop the message if users don't mind we shouldn't end up with too many variants and personally i don't like the mix (i.e. foo==yes can be used) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Am 06.08.2009 um 23:42 schrieb Hans Hagen:
1. texdefinition I like start/stoptexdefinition because it makes the source for certain macros more readable than \def allows me but is there a way to use it for macros without parameters?
this works
\starttexdefinition test {} oeps \stoptexdefinition
[\test]
not very nice and don't look pleasant to me
we can consider something like:
\starttexdefinition test optional,optional,argument,argument oeps \stoptexdefinition
which then becomes
\def\test[#1][#2]#3#4%
etc but i'm only willing to support that if we can stick to reasonable definitions
or even
\starttexdefinition test optional:ns,argument:name oeps \stoptexdefinition
which then automatically makes you a \getvariable{ns}{key} as well as \name
or maybe like xml:
\starttexdefinition test ns:optional,argument oeps \stoptexdefinition
with then makes an \getvariable{ns}{first} and so
needs a bit of thinking
i get the feeling we're moving towards latex3 (brr), before this happens drop the whole thing and i don't like \getvariable in this context anyway
2. commalists Together with texdefinition I use now start/stopprocesscommalist (feature request: I need also start/stopprocessassignmentlist) but I can use the list value without the need to define a command where I specify what should happen with it \startprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...] the current list value is #1\par \stopprocesscommalist but why is there not something equivalent for the normal processcommalist because the start/stop method is not the best method when you need nested lists, something like this would be nice then (I know \doprocesscommalist is already defined): \doprocesscommalist[a,b,c,...]% {\processcommalist[x,y,z,...]% {do something with #1 and ##1}}
hm, probably possible but not trivial (maybe not even robust) ... needs thinking (also a bit slower as we explicitly need a trick similar to the one used in dorecurse
when the inner list is used inside of a group the following works \long\def\processcommalistwithcontent[#1]#2% {\def\currentcommalistcommand##1{#2}% \processcommalist[#1]\currentcommalistcommand} \processcommalistwithcontent[a,b,c] {{\processcommalistwithcontent[x,y,z]{This is subelement ##1 of element #1.\par}}} but the extra pair of braces is kind of akward. Working without them is not the problem \newcount\commalistdepth \long\def\processcommalistwithcontent[#1]#2% {\advance\commalistdepth\plusone \long\expandafter\def\csname list:\number\commalistdepth \endcsname##1{#2}% \def\currentcommalistcommand{\csname list:\number\commalistdepth \endcsname}% \processcommalist[#1]\currentcommalistcommand \advance\commalistdepth\minusone} \processcommalistwithcontent[a,b,c] {\processcommalistwithcontent[x,y,z]{This is subelement ##1 of element #1.\par}} but as you mentioned above some kind of check (depth counter) is needed.
3. setups The various start/stopsetups environments another nice feature but what's the correct method when I want my own setup environment, should I adapt the following line from core-env to my own command \def\startsetups {\xxstartsetups\plusone \stopsetups } \let\stopsetups \relax and use method from lxml-ini to access/flush the content?
you mean that you want to pass an argument to a setup? (mandate in xmlsetup)
yes, more or less what you do with xml in mkiv \startxmlsetups ... do this in that \xmlflush{#1} do more things \stopxmlsetups in my games module for the input for chess, go ... \startpgnsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoppgnsetups
4. Mixed assignment/comma lists Are mixed lists of normal comma elements and assignments are allowed by ConTeXt’s syntax because there is a command in the source (\processassignlist) to process the non assignment values from the list? On the other side these values generate a error message on the terminal where one can read there is a missing '=' in the element and this message can't be disabled (without hacks).
yeah, a matter of choice ... we can drop the message if users don't mind
we shouldn't end up with too many variants and personally i don't like the mix (i.e. foo==yes can be used)
if the context way is to avoid comma values and assignment values in the same list the message should better remain Wolfgang
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
not very nice and don't look pleasant to me
sure, but a pleasant solution takes me more time -)
i get the feeling we're moving towards latex3 (brr), before this happens drop the whole thing and i don't like \getvariable in this context anyway
there was a presentation about this ltx3 low level syntax and i definitely don't want to have something like that; it's more that in context we have this system of [optional]{whatever} that we might want to support
\long\def\processcommalistwithcontent[#1]#2% {\def\currentcommalistcommand##1{#2}% \processcommalist[#1]\currentcommalistcommand}
\processcommalistwithcontent[a,b,c]{{\processcommalistwithcontent[x,y,z]{This is subelement ##1 of element #1.\par}}}
but the extra pair of braces is kind of akward. Working without them is not the problem
\newcount\commalistdepth
\long\def\processcommalistwithcontent[#1]#2% {\advance\commalistdepth\plusone \long\expandafter\def\csname list:\number\commalistdepth\endcsname##1{#2}% \def\currentcommalistcommand{\csname list:\number\commalistdepth\endcsname}% \processcommalist[#1]\currentcommalistcommand \advance\commalistdepth\minusone}
\processcommalistwithcontent[a,b,c]{\processcommalistwithcontent[x,y,z]{This is subelement ##1 of element #1.\par}}
but as you mentioned above some kind of check (depth counter) is needed.
right
in my games module for the input for chess, go ...
\startpgnsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoppgnsetups
well, maybe something like \starttexsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoptexsetups as generic case? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Am 07.08.2009 um 12:02 schrieb Hans Hagen:
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
not very nice and don't look pleasant to me
sure, but a pleasant solution takes me more time -)
that's why i asked, i wasn't able to write a pleasant one myself
i get the feeling we're moving towards latex3 (brr), before this happens drop the whole thing and i don't like \getvariable in this context anyway
there was a presentation about this ltx3 low level syntax and i definitely don't want to have something like that; it's more that in context we have this system of [optional]{whatever} that we might want to support
me neither, the latex3 system is too complicated and one has to remember what n, N, x ... means etc. there are a few interesting things like namespaces for module/macros but that's not worth the effort they take
in my games module for the input for chess, go ... \startpgnsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoppgnsetups
well, maybe something like
\starttexsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoptexsetups
as generic case?
i have to think about this but when i think about the current progress on the module i won't come back to this before 2010 :) Wolfgang
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 07.08.2009 um 12:02 schrieb Hans Hagen:
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
not very nice and don't look pleasant to me
sure, but a pleasant solution takes me more time -)
that's why i asked, i wasn't able to write a pleasant one myself
i get the feeling we're moving towards latex3 (brr), before this happens drop the whole thing and i don't like \getvariable in this context anyway
there was a presentation about this ltx3 low level syntax and i definitely don't want to have something like that; it's more that in context we have this system of [optional]{whatever} that we might want to support
me neither, the latex3 system is too complicated and one has to remember what n, N, x ... means etc.
indeed, and also kind of redundant as the name should denote the usage, i.e. imagine that in e.g. lua we did myfunction_takes_num_and_num i would not be surprised if it's also quite slow (esp when used in core code) and core code is not used by users anyway
there are a few interesting things like namespaces for module/macros but that's not worth the effort they take
indeed, but keep in mind that in context we seldom have other interfaces that [] and {}, no optoinal * etc
in my games module for the input for chess, go ... \startpgnsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoppgnsetups
well, maybe something like
\starttexsetups move do a few things before the move \pgnflush{#1} do a few things after the move \stoptexsetups
as generic case?
i have to think about this but when i think about the current progress on the module i won't come back to this before 2010 :)
----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Hans Hagen wrote:
i get the feeling we're moving towards latex3 (brr), before this happens drop the whole thing and i don't like \getvariable in this context anyway
there was a presentation about this ltx3 low level syntax and i definitely don't want to have something like that; it's more that in context we have this system of [optional]{whatever} that we might want to support
me neither, the latex3 system is too complicated and one has to remember what n, N, x ... means etc.
indeed, and also kind of redundant as the name should denote the usage, i.e. imagine that in e.g. lua we did myfunction_takes_num_and_num
i would not be surprised if it's also quite slow (esp when used in core code) and core code is not used by users anyway
there are a few interesting things like namespaces for module/macros but that's not worth the effort they take
indeed, but keep in mind that in context we seldom have other interfaces that [] and {}, no optoinal * etc
One good thing with LaTeX 3 syntax is that something like \DeclareDocumentCommand\foo { o o m } will be (from what I understand) equivalent to \def\foo {\dodoubleempty\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1][#2]#3{...} When I started using context, I was surprised that context did not have anything for optional arguments. We could have something like \definesinglearugment\foo[#1]#2{...} to be equal to \def\foo{\dosingleargument\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...} and \definesingleempty\foo[#1]#2{...] to be equal to \def\foo{\dosingleempty\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...} and similar things for \definedoublearugment, \definetripleargument, etc. I am not convinced that this is a good thing, but using something like this in the core may result in a 10% reduction in the code size and might kill a few dodos :) Aditya
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
When I started using context, I was surprised that context did not have anything for optional arguments. We could have something like
\definesinglearugment\foo[#1]#2{...}
to be equal to
\def\foo{\dosingleargument\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...}
and
\definesingleempty\foo[#1]#2{...]
to be equal to
\def\foo{\dosingleempty\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...}
and similar things for \definedoublearugment, \definetripleargument, etc. I am not convinced that this is a good thing, but using something like this in the core may result in a 10% reduction in the code size and might kill a few dodos :)
there is \definecomplexorsimple anyhow, it does not save commands and does not reduce the code size as you still need the intermediates; it might increase the format generation time with a few millisec Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Am 07.08.2009 um 14:33 schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
When I started using context, I was surprised that context did not have anything for optional arguments. We could have something like
\definesinglearugment\foo[#1]#2{...}
to be equal to
\def\foo{\dosingleargument\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...}
and
\definesingleempty\foo[#1]#2{...]
to be equal to
\def\foo{\dosingleempty\dofoo} \def\dofoo[#1]#2{...}
and similar things for \definedoublearugment, \definetripleargument, etc. I am not convinced that this is a good thing, but using something like this in the core may result in a 10% reduction in the code size and might kill a few dodos :)
It's now your turn to extend the macro to more optional arguments. \def\define {\doifnextoptionalelse\dodefine\nodefine} \def\nodefine{\dodefine[0]} \def\dodefine[#1]#2% {\doifnextoptionalelse{\dododefine[#1]#2}{\nododefine[#1]#2}} \def\dododefine[#1]#2[#3]#4% {\definecomplexorsimple#2 \setvalue{simple\strippedcsname#2}{\getvalue{complex \strippedcsname#2}[#3]}% \ifcase0#1\relax \setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}{#4}% \setvalue{simple\strippedcsname #2}{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3##4{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3##4##5{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3##4##5##6{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3##4##5##6##6{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2}[##1]##2##3##4##5##6##7##8{#4}% \or\setvalue{complex\strippedcsname#2} [##1]##2##3##4##5##6##7##8##9{#4}% \fi} \def\nododefine[#1]#2#3% {\ifx#2\undefined \else \showmessage{systems}{4}{\string#2}% \fi \ifcase0#1\def#2{#3}% \or\def#2##1{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4##5{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4##5##6{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4##5##6##7{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4##5##6##7##8{#3}% \or\def#2##1##2##3##4##5##6##7##8##9{#3}% \else\def#2{#3}% \fi} \starttext \define\foo{bar} \define[2]\bar{bar:#1:#2} \define[2]\help[me]{help #1 #2} \foo \bar{a}{b} \help{john} \help[you]{mike} \stoptext Wolfgang
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
It's now your turn to extend the macro to more optional arguments.
hm, your challenging me? i must be crazy but here you go \startluacode local texsprint, ctxcatcodes = tex.sprint, tex.ctxcatcodes local format, match, gmatch, rep = string.format, string.match, string.gmatch, string.rep local empty = { "single", "double", "triple", "quadruple", "quintuple", } local check = { "first", "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth", } function commands.define(str) -- we could store the defaults in lua and call lua instead but why bother local arg, cmd = match(str,"(.*)\\(.-)$") local a = { } for s in gmatch(arg,"%[(.-)%]") do a[#a+1] = s end local n = tonumber(a[#a]) if n then a[#a] = nil else n = 0 end texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("\\unexpanded\\def\\%s",cmd)) if #a > 0 then texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("{\\do%sempty\\do%s}",empty[#a],cmd)) texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("\\def\\do%s",cmd)) for i=1,#a do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"[#",i,"]") end texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"{") for i=#a,1,-1 do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("\\if%sargument",check[i])) texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("\\def\\next{\\dodo%s",cmd)) for j=1,#a-i do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("[%s]",a[j])) end for j=1,i do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("[#%s]",j)) end texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"}") if i == 1 then texsprint(ctxcatcodes,rep("\\fi",#a)) else texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"\\else") end end texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"\\next}") texsprint(ctxcatcodes,format("\\def\\dodo%s",cmd)) for i=1,#a do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"[#",i,"]") end end for i=1,n do texsprint(ctxcatcodes,"#",#a+i) end end \stopluacode \def\define#1#{\ctxlua{commands.define([[\detokenize{#1}]])}} \starttext \define[2]\whatevera{#1+#2} \whatevera{A}{B} \define[me][too][2]\whateverb{#1+#2+#3+#4} \whateverb[A]{B}{C} \whateverb[A][B]{C}{D} \stoptext we might add some \longs here and there ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Am 13.08.2009 um 23:35 schrieb Hans Hagen:
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
It's now your turn to extend the macro to more optional arguments.
hm, your challenging me?
not really, the sentence was directed to Aditya
i must be crazy but here you go
that's awesome :) Wolfgang
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 13.08.2009 um 23:35 schrieb Hans Hagen:
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
It's now your turn to extend the macro to more optional arguments.
hm, your challenging me?
not really, the sentence was directed to Aditya
Hey, I don't want to get involved in a coding challenge with you two. I am more than happy to enjoy the duel from the sidelines. Aditya
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 13.08.2009 um 23:35 schrieb Hans Hagen:
Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
It's now your turn to extend the macro to more optional arguments.
hm, your challenging me?
not really, the sentence was directed to Aditya
Hey, I don't want to get involved in a coding challenge with you two. I am more than happy to enjoy the duel from the sidelines.
well, you could have opted for ways to define delimited math comands using dollar signs but i remember that we recently agreed on getting rid of dollars Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Aditya Mahajan -
Hans Hagen -
Wolfgang Schuster