On 17-4-2010 9:20, Philipp Gesang wrote:
Hi Peter, hi all!
On 2010-04-17<08:52:05>, Peter Münster wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16 2010, Philipp Gesang wrote:
I'd naively expect \track#1 to behave identically regardless of interaction. How do I make it interaction-proof
Sorry, I had forgotten to answer your main-question:
\def\foottrack#1{\expanded{\footnote{\ctxlua{track.simple("#1")}}}} Thanks very much, this does it!
and, if possible, how do I interaction-proof macros in general?
I don't know, but I suppose \expanded{} can help in most cases.
Adding that one to my “try first”-list seems reasonable. There's a macro \expanded defined in syst-aux.mkiv but it mentions certain “recent TeXs” that have it builtin as a primitive -- which one am I using in mkiv? The LuaTeXbook mentions an extra primitive “\expanded” taken from pdfTeX. Are they equivalent?
no, we had \expanded (and \protected and \unexpanded and ...) long before they showed up as primitives when \expanded was added, it was agreed that that name could be used even if it clashed with context internals; ok, it add confusion for users who use low level code, but as we always have \normalexpanded in context it's no big deal; when in doubt, use \normal* for primitives (or \primitive\expanded) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------