[NTG-context] Re: unprotecting when defining in Lua

[Wolfgang Schuster <wolfgang.schuster.lists@gmail.com>]

Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context schrieb am 29.04.2024 um 18:21:
> On 4/29/24 18:04, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
>> Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context schrieb am 29.04.2024 um 17:22:
>>> [...]
>>> Which is the right way to use "interfaces.definecommand" to get a simple
>>> command as in standard TeX?
>>>
>>> I mean, no a non \permanent or non \protected command.
>> You can't create unprotected command with interfaces.definecommand
>> but this not a problem because you can just use interfaces.implement
>> to create your command which is then unprotected by default. Using
>> implement instead of definecommand doesn't matter because
>> definecommand is just a wrapper for the implement function with the
>> option to create a environment.
> Many thanks for your fast reply, Wolfgang.
>
> I’m reading it now in cld-mkiv.pdf.
>
> Is \protected the same as \unexpanded?

Yes they are the same (\protected is the primitive and \unexpanded is a 
copy) but this wasn't always the case.

Original TeX didn't provide a mechanism to create protected commands and 
creators of macro packages
had to create their own mechanism for this, the ConTeXt solution was 
\unexpanded. With the etex extensions
the \protected primitive was added and \unexpanded uses the new 
primitive when you used a engine
which supported it.

Wolfgang

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror)
archive  : https://github.com/contextgarden/context
wiki     : https://wiki.contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________