[Dev-luatex] .BEILMOPS or how I stopped worrying and love Open Source

David Kastrup dak at gnu.org
Wed Dec 12 10:58:37 CET 2007

"Jonathan Sauer" <Jonathan.Sauer at silverstroke.com> writes:

> [\unexpanded vs \detokenize]
>> > 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)

Your understanding is wrong.

This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.40.3 (Web2C 7.5.6)
 %&-line parsing enabled.
entering extended mode
\x a
*\message{\string\x a}
No pages of output.
Transcript written on texput.log.

> to prefixing each token with \string, \detokenize should not introduce
> spaces. IMO.

I disagree.  I don't think that \detokenize should behave differently
within \directlua.  Not least of all since "within" is very fuzzy to
define when macro expansion is involved.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

More information about the dev-luatex mailing list