[Dev-luatex] .BEILMOPS or how I stopped worrying and love Open Source
Jonathan.Sauer at silverstroke.com
Wed Dec 12 10:44:18 CET 2007
[\unexpanded vs \detokenize]
> > Well, currently it makes a difference, three actually:
> > 1. \unexpanded introduces "IMPOSSIBLE."
Addition: Only in the very specific situation created by the format
weird_format.tex (see my mail from 09:06 this morning).
> > 2. \unexpanded introduces spaces after control sequences.
> Why wouldn't \detokenize do the same? Wait, it does:
> > At least in the context of \directlua.
> I guess that this may be the real reason.
I thought a bit about this, and I think that it is quite useful if
\detokenize does not introduce spaces when used in \directlua, as
opposed to \unexpanded, since sometimes (i.e. when used as a set
in lpeg.S) spaces are completely undesired.
Of course, in these situations \string could be used as an alternative.
But since \detokenize is equivalent (at least as I understand it) to
prefixing each token with \string, \detokenize should not introduce
> >> >> btw, if you change \unexpanded by \detokenize you get
> >> >> the desired result
> >> >
> >> > I know.
> >> Oops. Why would that be?
> > Because of a bug? :-)
> I should think so. Not sure whether this behavioral difference is
> intended, but it certainly feels wrong to me.
I think we are talking about slightly different things: You about the
introduction of spaces by \unexpanded and \detokenize, me about the
"IMPOSSIBLE.". The latter most certainly is a bug :-)
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
More information about the dev-luatex