On 4/16/2013 12:11 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
On 2013–04–16 Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I'm not lobbying for define to have something similar, I just want to point out that it would be in the spirit of convergence between ConTeXt and Lua. It certainly isn't an urgent need, but having
\define[one,two,three]
wouldn't be absurd, now would it?
Sorry, misunderstanding on my part. That one looks fine. I thought we're talking about translating the number to words, which wouldn't make any sense:
\define[3]\foo{#one, #two, #three}
I still don't think it's necessary to use named parameters with \define. For modules most likely \def, \setvalue or texdefinition are being used and \define for in-document markup, wherefore numbered parameters are perfectly fine. The only thing that could be improved is a definition which doesn't interfere with \asciimode, but that's low priority and can easily be worked around.
It's also messy (in parsing): \define[#one,#two]\test{#one#two} there we have to collect and move the test backwards. Also, names defeats the use of the one number becoming multiple #'s so it then close to \define\test[#one,#two]{#one#two} which is nearly \def\test[#one,#two]{#one#two} apart from the checking, so i decided to provide this: \checked\def \whatevera#alpha#beta{#alpha + #beta} \checked\edef\whatevera#alpha#beta{#beta + #alpha} \unique \def \whateverb#alpha#beta{#alpha + #beta} \unique \edef\whateverb#alpha#beta{#beta + #alpha} \whatevera{1}{2}\par \whateverb{1}{2}\par (can be used with \def \edef \xdef \gdef \udef \uedef \uxdef and \ugdef) 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------