How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?Context-sensitive newline macroCreate my own NSDHow to write a...
Test whether all array elements are factors of a number
How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?
Test if tikzmark exists on same page
Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?
Finding angle with pure Geometry.
TGV timetables / schedules?
Schoenfled Residua test shows proportionality hazard assumptions holds but Kaplan-Meier plots intersect
Have astronauts in space suits ever taken selfies? If so, how?
LaTeX closing $ signs makes cursor jump
Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?
What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Is a tag line useful on a cover?
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
Pattern match does not work in bash script
Theorems that impeded progress
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?
Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Today is the Center
How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?
Context-sensitive newline macroCreate my own NSDHow to write a parameter-driven macro?How can I create a better cryptogram environment?How to write a TeX macro that accepts a number or a count register as argument?Macro to close all open environments, groups and argument delimitersTexshop macro for bracesWrite an unpar macroInput length sensitive optional argument macrocontext-sensitive macro: look behind?
In the xparse
package, there is the g
type of argument which captures things inside a pair of TeX group tokens. This makes it possible to define commands foo
that behaves differently for foo{a}
and foo a
. I am interested in whether such type of macro is possible in plain TeX (I guess yes) and if it is possible, how can it be implemented. I am new to plain TeX and I appreciate detailed explanation of the workflow of such a macro. I would also be happy to learn about other possibilities such as in e-TeX instead of plain TeX.
macros plain-tex braces
New contributor
add a comment |
In the xparse
package, there is the g
type of argument which captures things inside a pair of TeX group tokens. This makes it possible to define commands foo
that behaves differently for foo{a}
and foo a
. I am interested in whether such type of macro is possible in plain TeX (I guess yes) and if it is possible, how can it be implemented. I am new to plain TeX and I appreciate detailed explanation of the workflow of such a macro. I would also be happy to learn about other possibilities such as in e-TeX instead of plain TeX.
macros plain-tex braces
New contributor
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,foo a
andfoo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).
– egreg
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwisexparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g.physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
1
It's indeed used inphysics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.
– egreg
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In the xparse
package, there is the g
type of argument which captures things inside a pair of TeX group tokens. This makes it possible to define commands foo
that behaves differently for foo{a}
and foo a
. I am interested in whether such type of macro is possible in plain TeX (I guess yes) and if it is possible, how can it be implemented. I am new to plain TeX and I appreciate detailed explanation of the workflow of such a macro. I would also be happy to learn about other possibilities such as in e-TeX instead of plain TeX.
macros plain-tex braces
New contributor
In the xparse
package, there is the g
type of argument which captures things inside a pair of TeX group tokens. This makes it possible to define commands foo
that behaves differently for foo{a}
and foo a
. I am interested in whether such type of macro is possible in plain TeX (I guess yes) and if it is possible, how can it be implemented. I am new to plain TeX and I appreciate detailed explanation of the workflow of such a macro. I would also be happy to learn about other possibilities such as in e-TeX instead of plain TeX.
macros plain-tex braces
macros plain-tex braces
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 1 hour ago
Weijun ZhouWeijun Zhou
1234
1234
New contributor
New contributor
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,foo a
andfoo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).
– egreg
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwisexparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g.physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
1
It's indeed used inphysics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.
– egreg
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,foo a
andfoo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).
– egreg
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwisexparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g.physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
1
It's indeed used inphysics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.
– egreg
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,
foo a
and foo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).– egreg
1 hour ago
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,
foo a
and foo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).– egreg
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwise
xparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g. physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwise
xparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g. physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
1
1
It's indeed used in
physics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.– egreg
1 hour ago
It's indeed used in
physics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.– egreg
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up adding
relax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up adding
relax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet
as you do for any other look ahead
deffoo{futureletfootokenfooaux}
deffooaux{%
ifxfootokenbgroup
% Brace group
else
% Something else
fi
}
The only reason this 'looks different' to other peek ahead situations is that you can't use an explicit {
, but rather the implicit token bgroup
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You can use futurelet
letleftbracechar={
deffoo{%
begingroup
futureletfootempinnerfoo
}%
definnerfoo{%
expandafterendgroup
ifxfootempleftbracechar
expandafterfooatleftbrace
else
expandafterfooatnoleftbrace
fi
}%
deffooatleftbrace#1{Argument in braces is: {bf #1}}
deffooatnoleftbrace#1{Argument without braces is: {bf #1}}
foo a
foo{a}
bye
, but be aware that this can be confused by implicit characters, i.e., by things like foobgroup huh?...
Besides this, the check is only about tokens (be they explicit or implicit character tokens) where the category code is 1 (begin group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not work out with character tokens where the category code is 1 (begin group) but the character-code is different.
But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argument is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin group) no matter what its character code might be:
%%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Check whether argument's first token is an explicit catcode-1-character
%%.............................................................................
%% UDCheckWhetherBrace{<Argument which is to be checked>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has no leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
longdeffirstoftwo#1#2{#1}%
longdefsecondoftwo#1#2{#2}%
longdefUDCheckWhetherBrace#1{%
romannumeral0expandaftersecondoftwoexpandafter{expandafter{%
string#1.}expandafterfirstoftwoexpandafter{expandafter
secondoftwostring}expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}%
firstoftwo}{expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}secondoftwo}%
}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's have some fun: Give [ the same functionality as {:
catcode`[=thecatcode`{
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's see that the test on explicit characters is not fooled by implicit characters:
letbgroup={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroupegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroup Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% The test is also not fooled by implicit active characters:
catcode`X=13
let X={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Xegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{X Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
bye
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by theromannumeral0
-thingie:romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.
– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483588%2fhow-to-write-a-macro-that-is-braces-sensitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet
as you do for any other look ahead
deffoo{futureletfootokenfooaux}
deffooaux{%
ifxfootokenbgroup
% Brace group
else
% Something else
fi
}
The only reason this 'looks different' to other peek ahead situations is that you can't use an explicit {
, but rather the implicit token bgroup
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet
as you do for any other look ahead
deffoo{futureletfootokenfooaux}
deffooaux{%
ifxfootokenbgroup
% Brace group
else
% Something else
fi
}
The only reason this 'looks different' to other peek ahead situations is that you can't use an explicit {
, but rather the implicit token bgroup
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet
as you do for any other look ahead
deffoo{futureletfootokenfooaux}
deffooaux{%
ifxfootokenbgroup
% Brace group
else
% Something else
fi
}
The only reason this 'looks different' to other peek ahead situations is that you can't use an explicit {
, but rather the implicit token bgroup
.
Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet
as you do for any other look ahead
deffoo{futureletfootokenfooaux}
deffooaux{%
ifxfootokenbgroup
% Brace group
else
% Something else
fi
}
The only reason this 'looks different' to other peek ahead situations is that you can't use an explicit {
, but rather the implicit token bgroup
.
edited 53 mins ago
frougon
783611
783611
answered 1 hour ago
Joseph Wright♦Joseph Wright
205k23563891
205k23563891
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You can use futurelet
letleftbracechar={
deffoo{%
begingroup
futureletfootempinnerfoo
}%
definnerfoo{%
expandafterendgroup
ifxfootempleftbracechar
expandafterfooatleftbrace
else
expandafterfooatnoleftbrace
fi
}%
deffooatleftbrace#1{Argument in braces is: {bf #1}}
deffooatnoleftbrace#1{Argument without braces is: {bf #1}}
foo a
foo{a}
bye
, but be aware that this can be confused by implicit characters, i.e., by things like foobgroup huh?...
Besides this, the check is only about tokens (be they explicit or implicit character tokens) where the category code is 1 (begin group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not work out with character tokens where the category code is 1 (begin group) but the character-code is different.
But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argument is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin group) no matter what its character code might be:
%%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Check whether argument's first token is an explicit catcode-1-character
%%.............................................................................
%% UDCheckWhetherBrace{<Argument which is to be checked>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has no leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
longdeffirstoftwo#1#2{#1}%
longdefsecondoftwo#1#2{#2}%
longdefUDCheckWhetherBrace#1{%
romannumeral0expandaftersecondoftwoexpandafter{expandafter{%
string#1.}expandafterfirstoftwoexpandafter{expandafter
secondoftwostring}expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}%
firstoftwo}{expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}secondoftwo}%
}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's have some fun: Give [ the same functionality as {:
catcode`[=thecatcode`{
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's see that the test on explicit characters is not fooled by implicit characters:
letbgroup={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroupegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroup Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% The test is also not fooled by implicit active characters:
catcode`X=13
let X={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Xegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{X Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
bye
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by theromannumeral0
-thingie:romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.
– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
add a comment |
You can use futurelet
letleftbracechar={
deffoo{%
begingroup
futureletfootempinnerfoo
}%
definnerfoo{%
expandafterendgroup
ifxfootempleftbracechar
expandafterfooatleftbrace
else
expandafterfooatnoleftbrace
fi
}%
deffooatleftbrace#1{Argument in braces is: {bf #1}}
deffooatnoleftbrace#1{Argument without braces is: {bf #1}}
foo a
foo{a}
bye
, but be aware that this can be confused by implicit characters, i.e., by things like foobgroup huh?...
Besides this, the check is only about tokens (be they explicit or implicit character tokens) where the category code is 1 (begin group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not work out with character tokens where the category code is 1 (begin group) but the character-code is different.
But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argument is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin group) no matter what its character code might be:
%%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Check whether argument's first token is an explicit catcode-1-character
%%.............................................................................
%% UDCheckWhetherBrace{<Argument which is to be checked>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has no leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
longdeffirstoftwo#1#2{#1}%
longdefsecondoftwo#1#2{#2}%
longdefUDCheckWhetherBrace#1{%
romannumeral0expandaftersecondoftwoexpandafter{expandafter{%
string#1.}expandafterfirstoftwoexpandafter{expandafter
secondoftwostring}expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}%
firstoftwo}{expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}secondoftwo}%
}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's have some fun: Give [ the same functionality as {:
catcode`[=thecatcode`{
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's see that the test on explicit characters is not fooled by implicit characters:
letbgroup={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroupegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroup Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% The test is also not fooled by implicit active characters:
catcode`X=13
let X={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Xegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{X Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
bye
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by theromannumeral0
-thingie:romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.
– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
add a comment |
You can use futurelet
letleftbracechar={
deffoo{%
begingroup
futureletfootempinnerfoo
}%
definnerfoo{%
expandafterendgroup
ifxfootempleftbracechar
expandafterfooatleftbrace
else
expandafterfooatnoleftbrace
fi
}%
deffooatleftbrace#1{Argument in braces is: {bf #1}}
deffooatnoleftbrace#1{Argument without braces is: {bf #1}}
foo a
foo{a}
bye
, but be aware that this can be confused by implicit characters, i.e., by things like foobgroup huh?...
Besides this, the check is only about tokens (be they explicit or implicit character tokens) where the category code is 1 (begin group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not work out with character tokens where the category code is 1 (begin group) but the character-code is different.
But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argument is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin group) no matter what its character code might be:
%%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Check whether argument's first token is an explicit catcode-1-character
%%.............................................................................
%% UDCheckWhetherBrace{<Argument which is to be checked>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has no leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
longdeffirstoftwo#1#2{#1}%
longdefsecondoftwo#1#2{#2}%
longdefUDCheckWhetherBrace#1{%
romannumeral0expandaftersecondoftwoexpandafter{expandafter{%
string#1.}expandafterfirstoftwoexpandafter{expandafter
secondoftwostring}expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}%
firstoftwo}{expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}secondoftwo}%
}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's have some fun: Give [ the same functionality as {:
catcode`[=thecatcode`{
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's see that the test on explicit characters is not fooled by implicit characters:
letbgroup={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroupegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroup Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% The test is also not fooled by implicit active characters:
catcode`X=13
let X={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Xegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{X Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
bye
You can use futurelet
letleftbracechar={
deffoo{%
begingroup
futureletfootempinnerfoo
}%
definnerfoo{%
expandafterendgroup
ifxfootempleftbracechar
expandafterfooatleftbrace
else
expandafterfooatnoleftbrace
fi
}%
deffooatleftbrace#1{Argument in braces is: {bf #1}}
deffooatnoleftbrace#1{Argument without braces is: {bf #1}}
foo a
foo{a}
bye
, but be aware that this can be confused by implicit characters, i.e., by things like foobgroup huh?...
Besides this, the check is only about tokens (be they explicit or implicit character tokens) where the category code is 1 (begin group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not work out with character tokens where the category code is 1 (begin group) but the character-code is different.
But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argument is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin group) no matter what its character code might be:
%%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Check whether argument's first token is an explicit catcode-1-character
%%.............................................................................
%% UDCheckWhetherBrace{<Argument which is to be checked>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
%% {<Tokens to be delivered in case that argument
%% which is to be checked has no leading
%% catcode-1-token>}%
longdeffirstoftwo#1#2{#1}%
longdefsecondoftwo#1#2{#2}%
longdefUDCheckWhetherBrace#1{%
romannumeral0expandaftersecondoftwoexpandafter{expandafter{%
string#1.}expandafterfirstoftwoexpandafter{expandafter
secondoftwostring}expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}%
firstoftwo}{expandafterexpandafterfirstoftwo{ }{}secondoftwo}%
}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{{Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's have some fun: Give [ the same functionality as {:
catcode`[=thecatcode`{
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[}Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{[Test}}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% Now let's see that the test on explicit characters is not fooled by implicit characters:
letbgroup={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroupegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{bgroup Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
leavevmodehrulefillnull
% The test is also not fooled by implicit active characters:
catcode`X=13
let X={
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{Xegroup Test}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
UDCheckWhetherBrace{X Testegroup}%
{The first token of the arg is an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
{The first token of the arg is not an explicit catcode 1 char.}%
bye
answered 1 hour ago
Ulrich DiezUlrich Diez
5,570620
5,570620
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by theromannumeral0
-thingie:romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.
– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
add a comment |
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by theromannumeral0
-thingie:romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.
– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
This is much more extensive. I will spend some time understanding and learning from it. I think the idea of checking catcode instead of char code is very interesting and useful. It would be great if some more explanation can be added for the latter case.
– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
If you do so, don't be confused by the
romannumeral0
-thingie: romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
If you do so, don't be confused by the
romannumeral0
-thingie: romannumeral
does not deliver any token in case it finds a non-positive number but while searching for more digits or a space which terminates the number and gets discarded, it triggers expansion of expandable tokens. Thus here it is used only for keeping expansion going. I will edit my answer and attach a bit of explanation. But that may take some minutes.– Ulrich Diez
59 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
I see. You may add this to the answer.
– Weijun Zhou
58 mins ago
add a comment |
Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483588%2fhow-to-write-a-macro-that-is-braces-sensitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It's possible, but it's bad syntax. Under normal TeX conventions,
foo a
andfoo{a}
should be considered equivalent (when the argument consists of a single token as in this case).– egreg
1 hour ago
Thank you for your quick reply. I know it's bad syntax otherwise
xparse
would not declare it as obsolete, but it is (extensively) used in e.g.physics
package. I am just not sure about whether it can be done in plain, or it requires some features of the engine.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago
1
It's indeed used in
physics
. My opinion about the package is that it has good ideas, but I can't recommend its usage. The weird syntax is just one among the several reasons for not recommending it.– egreg
1 hour ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up adding
relax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.– Weijun Zhou
1 hour ago