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?
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
45 mins 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
41 mins 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
39 mins ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.
– Weijun Zhou
32 mins 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 48 mins ago
Weijun ZhouWeijun Zhou
1184
1184
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
45 mins 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
41 mins 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
39 mins ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
here and there ... but I guess I will still use it.
– Weijun Zhou
32 mins 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
45 mins 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
41 mins 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
39 mins ago
Due to the weird syntax I end up addingrelax
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
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{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
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
35 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 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
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{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
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
35 mins ago
add a comment |
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
.
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
35 mins ago
add a comment |
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
.
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
.
answered 41 mins ago
Joseph Wright♦Joseph Wright
205k23563891
205k23563891
That's clear enough and much simpler than I originally imagined.
– Weijun Zhou
35 mins ago
add a comment |
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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
answered 56 secs ago
Ulrich DiezUlrich Diez
5,550620
5,550620
add a comment |
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
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