How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?Context-sensitive newline macroCreate my own NSDHow to write a...

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

Theorems that impeded progress

How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?

Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits

How does strength of boric acid solution increase in presence of salicylic acid?

Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?

What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?

Does Unearthed Arcana render Favored Souls redundant?

Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing

Dragon forelimb placement

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?

Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?

US citizen flying to France today and my passport expires in less than 2 months

How old can references or sources in a thesis be?

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

tikz: show 0 at the axis origin

Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

Test if tikzmark exists on same page

Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?

Characters won't fit in table



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?













3















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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • 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
    45 mins 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
    41 mins 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
    39 mins ago













  • Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

    – Weijun Zhou
    32 mins ago
















3















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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • 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
    45 mins 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
    41 mins 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
    39 mins ago













  • Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

    – Weijun Zhou
    32 mins ago














3












3








3








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.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












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






share|improve this question







New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 48 mins ago









Weijun ZhouWeijun Zhou

1184




1184




New contributor




Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Weijun Zhou is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • 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
    45 mins 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
    41 mins 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
    39 mins ago













  • Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

    – Weijun Zhou
    32 mins 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
    45 mins 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
    41 mins 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
    39 mins ago













  • Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

    – Weijun Zhou
    32 mins 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
45 mins 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
45 mins 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
41 mins 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
41 mins 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
39 mins 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
39 mins ago















Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

– Weijun Zhou
32 mins ago





Due to the weird syntax I end up adding relax here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.

– Weijun Zhou
32 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet as you do for any other look ahead



deffoo{futureletfooauxfootoken}
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.






share|improve this answer
























  • That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

    – Weijun Zhou
    35 mins ago



















0














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


enter image description here



, 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 of group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not out work out with character-tokens where the category code is 1 but the character-code is different.



But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argumnt is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin of 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


enter image description here





share
























    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.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    3














    Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet as you do for any other look ahead



    deffoo{futureletfooauxfootoken}
    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.






    share|improve this answer
























    • That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

      – Weijun Zhou
      35 mins ago
















    3














    Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet as you do for any other look ahead



    deffoo{futureletfooauxfootoken}
    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.






    share|improve this answer
























    • That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

      – Weijun Zhou
      35 mins ago














    3












    3








    3







    Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet as you do for any other look ahead



    deffoo{futureletfooauxfootoken}
    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.






    share|improve this answer













    Fundamentally you just need to use futurelet as you do for any other look ahead



    deffoo{futureletfooauxfootoken}
    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 41 mins ago









    Joseph WrightJoseph Wright

    205k23563891




    205k23563891













    • That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

      – Weijun Zhou
      35 mins ago



















    • That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

      – Weijun Zhou
      35 mins ago

















    That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

    – Weijun Zhou
    35 mins ago





    That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.

    – Weijun Zhou
    35 mins ago











    0














    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


    enter image description here



    , 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 of group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not out work out with character-tokens where the category code is 1 but the character-code is different.



    But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argumnt is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin of 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


    enter image description here





    share




























      0














      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


      enter image description here



      , 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 of group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not out work out with character-tokens where the category code is 1 but the character-code is different.



      But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argumnt is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin of 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


      enter image description here





      share


























        0












        0








        0







        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


        enter image description here



        , 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 of group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not out work out with character-tokens where the category code is 1 but the character-code is different.



        But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argumnt is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin of 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


        enter image description here





        share













        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


        enter image description here



        , 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 of group) and the character-code equals the character-code of the curly-opening-brace-character. The check does not out work out with character-tokens where the category code is 1 but the character-code is different.



        But you can implement a full expandable check which tells you whether the first token inside a macro-argumnt is an explicit character-token of category code 1 (begin of 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


        enter image description here






        share











        share


        share










        answered 56 secs ago









        Ulrich DiezUlrich Diez

        5,550620




        5,550620






















            Weijun Zhou is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            “%fieldName is a required field.”, in Magento2 REST API Call for GET Method Type The Next...

            How to change City field to a dropdown in Checkout step Magento 2Magento 2 : How to change UI field(s)...

            變成蝙蝠會怎樣? 參考資料 外部連結 导航菜单Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a...