On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:44:34 +0100, Taco Hoekwater wrote: Hi Taco,

...

...

the notes from the Oldenburg meeting mentions an \expanded primitive: \expanded <general text> Expandable command returning the full expansion of the tokens in <general text>. So since this pretty much exists inside \pdfstrcmp as it is now, it could

Can someone please post an example of intended use in the l3 kernel in "plain"-style, just so I understand the usage?

I would assume the following should be equivalent except for the latter being expandable. \def\cmd#1{\edef\tempa{#1}\expandafter\cmd\expandafter{\tempa}} \def\cmd#1{\expandafter\cmd\expandafter{\expanded{#1}}}

ConTeXt's \expanded macro expands its argument fully except for the very first item in it, which is handy for macros that need expanded arguments, so I assume the actual goals are very similar.

Yes, I think so too.

...

a) \expanded would be a nice name, but it clashes with ConTeXt. I remember trouble with \unexpanded :-(

Hans and I think a) would be fine. c) is somewhat silly as it is not related to pdftex, and also a) combines nicely with the already present \unexpanded.

a) is what I was hoping for. :-) -- Morten

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:33:14 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:

Morten Høgholm writes:

...

I would assume the following should be equivalent except for the latter being expandable.

\def\cmd#1{\edef\tempa{#1}\expandafter\cmd\expandafter{\tempa}}

\def\cmd#1{\expandafter\cmd\expandafter{\expanded{#1}}}

No. The former would complain about isolated # tokens in #1 (and collapse double ones).

Ah yes (and sorry for the silly example above - it's really remarkably bad). You comment reminded me of something I added to l3tlp.dtx under the entry: r594 | morten | 2007-06-10 23:32:58 +0200 (Sun, 10 Jun 2007) | 2 lines Tried to make functions treat hash marks as uniform as possible % A word of warning is appropriate here: Token list pointers are % implemented as macros and as such currently inherit some of the % peculiarities of how \TeX\ handles "#"s in the argument of % macros. In particular, the following actions are legal % \begin{verbatim} % \tlp_set:Nn \l_tmpa_tlp{##1} % \tlp_put_right:Nn \l_tmpa_tlp{##2} % \tlp_set:No \l_tmpb_tlp{\l_tmpa_tlp ##3} % \end{verbatim} % |x| type expansions where macros being expanded contain |#|s do not % work and will not work until there is an |\expanded| primitive in % the engine. If you want them to work you must double |#|s another % level. All the more reason for \expanded... 'night, -- Morten

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:26:14PM +0100, Martin Schröder wrote:

2007/12/10, Taco Hoekwater :

...

...

Biggest problem is probably a good name: a) \expanded would be a nice name, [...]

Hans and I think a) would be fine. [...]

I agree. A patch is welcome. :-)

Patch 885. Yours sincerely Heiko --

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:54:42PM +0100, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

Heiko Oberdiek wrote:

...

Patch 885.

I suspect there will be a problem with

\setvalue{begin\expanded{\getvalue{relax}}}

but have not time to delve into that right now.

I suspect this, because \directlua in luatex has similar problems wrt. the 'current string', and I had to do introduce a variable to save that, like this:

procedure conv_toks; u:str_number; {...}

u:=0; if str_start_macro(str_ptr)0 then begin if str_ptr=u+1 then decr(str_ptr) else begin {copy old string to the top location} i:=0; str_room(length(u)); while i

In pdfTeX 1.40.5 all the primitives (\pdfstrcmp, \pdfescape*, ...) are surrounded by save_cur_string and restore_cur_string. They do quite similar: @dsave_cur_string==if str_start[str_ptr]0 then begin decr(str_ptr); u:=0; end The initial "u:=0" and the extra "else" case aren't present. Either the situation in LuaTeX is a little different or all these primitives would probably need this. But I don't have any examples that would show the problem. Yours sincerely Heiko --