Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Jairo A. del Rio]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 462 bytes --]

I've read the following is not possible in TeX

\def#1\macro{blabla#1}

where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands like
\atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do this in
ConTeXt?

Could it be a feature request for LuaMetaTeX? I've seen Hans experimenting
a lot with new primitives and new possibilities for arguments, like #0 and
co., so I ask in case it's not too nonsensical to propose it. Regards

Jairo :)

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 599 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Hans Hagen]

On 6/28/2020 10:48 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> I've read the following is not possible in TeX
> 
> \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
> 
> where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands 
> like \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do 
> this in ConTeXt?
> 
> Could it be a feature request for LuaMetaTeX? I've seen Hans 
> experimenting a lot with new primitives and new possibilities for 
> arguments, like #0 and co., so I ask in case it's not too nonsensical to 
> propose it. Regards
Every \foo will be looked up, so by the time \macro in:

   bla bla {\bf xxx}\macro{xxx}

is seen, the {\bf xxx} is already passed and processed. TeX never looks 
back, which actually would make for a pretty complex multipass parsing 
and expansion management (forward control and backward: \expandafter 
would then also have an \expandbefore companion). Even in the simple 
case: should it keep track of quantities done (grouped, single token, 
box, etc.) and then in retrospect see it as #1 (them being nodes by now 
and not tokens)?

So, why in math but not in text? The \atop and \over (those are 
basically all the same command but with a different treatment 
afterwards) are an exception: (1) tex knows that is is in math mode, and 
in math mode the { } are not really arguments but defines some stuff 
handled together. Much processing (not all) is delayed to a second pass, 
so {1}\over{2} internally becomes \over{1}{2} and even that is kind of 
tricky because there are math styles involved (which makes for some hard 
coded behaviour that in the perspective of luametatex i try to get more 
grip on). Now, in order to handle this one (!) exception to lookahead 
parsing, special tracking happens in math mode, the previous math 
grouped stuff is registered and adapted to the \over when seen, 
otherwise it stays as is. This exception also maked the code somewhat 
messier because there are several spots where it has to be dealt with 
(also think of saving and restoring states). Just imagine that there 
were more such commands. Believe me, you really don't want to know the 
details.

So the answer is "Can't be done without overhauling the whole concept".

Now, I know that the narrative is that context is a moving target 
(contrary to other macro packages that don't / can't change because 
users / publishers expect them to behave the same forever) so one can 
argue that for context we can follow a drastic different route, but even 
then, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot too often. I know that some 
people (read: Alan) love these {{}\foo{}} syntaxes but live would have 
been simpler if even \over has not be in there with prefix notation 
(there is a reason why macro package have \frac like variants).

Hans



-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Jairo A. del Rio]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3752 bytes --]

Hans, after your explanation I'm actually curious now about details, but my
knowledge is too limited now (maybe reading source codes would be better?
Worse?). I do a bit of C, but I don't know about Pascal at all and I'm not
sure where to start from in order to understand TeX better. Well, at least
I know why that feature isn't supported. I'll be thankful for any
references. Thank you very much.

Jairo :)

El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 02:28, Hans Hagen (j.hagen@xs4all.nl)
escribió:

> On 6/28/2020 10:48 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> > I've read the following is not possible in TeX
> >
> > \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
> >
> > where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands
> > like \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do
> > this in ConTeXt?
> >
> > Could it be a feature request for LuaMetaTeX? I've seen Hans
> > experimenting a lot with new primitives and new possibilities for
> > arguments, like #0 and co., so I ask in case it's not too nonsensical to
> > propose it. Regards
> Every \foo will be looked up, so by the time \macro in:
>
>    bla bla {\bf xxx}\macro{xxx}
>
> is seen, the {\bf xxx} is already passed and processed. TeX never looks
> back, which actually would make for a pretty complex multipass parsing
> and expansion management (forward control and backward: \expandafter
> would then also have an \expandbefore companion). Even in the simple
> case: should it keep track of quantities done (grouped, single token,
> box, etc.) and then in retrospect see it as #1 (them being nodes by now
> and not tokens)?
>
> So, why in math but not in text? The \atop and \over (those are
> basically all the same command but with a different treatment
> afterwards) are an exception: (1) tex knows that is is in math mode, and
> in math mode the { } are not really arguments but defines some stuff
> handled together. Much processing (not all) is delayed to a second pass,
> so {1}\over{2} internally becomes \over{1}{2} and even that is kind of
> tricky because there are math styles involved (which makes for some hard
> coded behaviour that in the perspective of luametatex i try to get more
> grip on). Now, in order to handle this one (!) exception to lookahead
> parsing, special tracking happens in math mode, the previous math
> grouped stuff is registered and adapted to the \over when seen,
> otherwise it stays as is. This exception also maked the code somewhat
> messier because there are several spots where it has to be dealt with
> (also think of saving and restoring states). Just imagine that there
> were more such commands. Believe me, you really don't want to know the
> details.
>
> So the answer is "Can't be done without overhauling the whole concept".
>
> Now, I know that the narrative is that context is a moving target
> (contrary to other macro packages that don't / can't change because
> users / publishers expect them to behave the same forever) so one can
> argue that for context we can follow a drastic different route, but even
> then, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot too often. I know that some
> people (read: Alan) love these {{}\foo{}} syntaxes but live would have
> been simpler if even \over has not be in there with prefix notation
> (there is a reason why macro package have \frac like variants).
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4497 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Taco Hoekwater]

Hi,

Oversimplifying: 

TeX (and derivatives like luatex) read the input file as a list of operators with optional suffix arguments.

In normal (text) mode, there is no expression state maintained except inside the handling of such optional arguments. 

It follows that, if there is a top-level text input like

  a\bold{a}

TeX treats this as (assuming ’simple’ macro definitions):
  
  command a     (no arguments)
  command \bold (a macro with one one braced argument)

And by the time “\bold" is seen, the  “a” command has already been processed completely. 


In math mode, there *is* an expression state maintained, and that is why \over and \atop work.


For further information and actual details, you can just look at the luatex source (it is in C):

  https://github.com/TeX-Live/luatex/blob/trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/maincontrol.c

The function 

  void main_control(void)

is the one that does all the heavy lifting (using a dispatch table).

Taco

> On 29 Jun 2020, at 12:15, Jairo A. del Rio <jairoadelrio6@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hans, after your explanation I'm actually curious now about details, but my knowledge is too limited now (maybe reading source codes would be better? Worse?). I do a bit of C, but I don't know about Pascal at all and I'm not sure where to start from in order to understand TeX better. Well, at least I know why that feature isn't supported. I'll be thankful for any references. Thank you very much.
> 
> Jairo :)
> 
> El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 02:28, Hans Hagen (j.hagen@xs4all.nl) escribió:
> On 6/28/2020 10:48 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> > I've read the following is not possible in TeX
> > 
> > \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
> > 
> > where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands 
> > like \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do 
> > this in ConTeXt?
> > 
> > Could it be a feature request for LuaMetaTeX? I've seen Hans 
> > experimenting a lot with new primitives and new possibilities for 
> > arguments, like #0 and co., so I ask in case it's not too nonsensical to 
> > propose it. Regards
> Every \foo will be looked up, so by the time \macro in:
> 
>    bla bla {\bf xxx}\macro{xxx}
> 
> is seen, the {\bf xxx} is already passed and processed. TeX never looks 
> back, which actually would make for a pretty complex multipass parsing 
> and expansion management (forward control and backward: \expandafter 
> would then also have an \expandbefore companion). Even in the simple 
> case: should it keep track of quantities done (grouped, single token, 
> box, etc.) and then in retrospect see it as #1 (them being nodes by now 
> and not tokens)?
> 
> So, why in math but not in text? The \atop and \over (those are 
> basically all the same command but with a different treatment 
> afterwards) are an exception: (1) tex knows that is is in math mode, and 
> in math mode the { } are not really arguments but defines some stuff 
> handled together. Much processing (not all) is delayed to a second pass, 
> so {1}\over{2} internally becomes \over{1}{2} and even that is kind of 
> tricky because there are math styles involved (which makes for some hard 
> coded behaviour that in the perspective of luametatex i try to get more 
> grip on). Now, in order to handle this one (!) exception to lookahead 
> parsing, special tracking happens in math mode, the previous math 
> grouped stuff is registered and adapted to the \over when seen, 
> otherwise it stays as is. This exception also maked the code somewhat 
> messier because there are several spots where it has to be dealt with 
> (also think of saving and restoring states). Just imagine that there 
> were more such commands. Believe me, you really don't want to know the 
> details.
> 
> So the answer is "Can't be done without overhauling the whole concept".
> 
> Now, I know that the narrative is that context is a moving target 
> (contrary to other macro packages that don't / can't change because 
> users / publishers expect them to behave the same forever) so one can 
> argue that for context we can follow a drastic different route, but even 
> then, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot too often. I know that some 
> people (read: Alan) love these {{}\foo{}} syntaxes but live would have 
> been simpler if even \over has not be in there with prefix notation 
> (there is a reason why macro package have \frac like variants).
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________

Taco Hoekwater
Elvenkind BV




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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Taco Hoekwater]

Sorry, that was a bit too much oversimplification:

> On 29 Jun 2020, at 12:36, Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com> wrote:
> 
> In math mode, there *is* an expression state maintained, and that is why \over and \atop work.

Actually (still oversimplifying), the found commands are saved in a temporary list,
that is then reprocessed once math mode has ended. And at that stage, an expression tree is built up.

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Hans Hagen]

On 6/29/2020 1:06 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> Sorry, that was a bit too much oversimplification:
> 
>> On 29 Jun 2020, at 12:36, Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com> wrote:
>>
>> In math mode, there *is* an expression state maintained, and that is why \over and \atop work.
> 
> Actually (still oversimplifying), the found commands are saved in a temporary list,
> that is then reprocessed once math mode has ended. And at that stage, an expression tree is built up.
another way to look at it is to think of each {...} being a subformula, so

    {1} \over {2}

are two subformulas combined into one larger subformula

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Jairo A. del Rio]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6369 bytes --]

I'll take a look at it. Thank you a lot, Taco.

Regards,

Jairo :)

El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 05:36, Taco Hoekwater (
taco@elvenkind.com) escribió:

> Hi,
>
> Oversimplifying:
>
> TeX (and derivatives like luatex) read the input file as a list of
> operators with optional suffix arguments.
>
> In normal (text) mode, there is no expression state maintained except
> inside the handling of such optional arguments.
>
> It follows that, if there is a top-level text input like
>
>   a\bold{a}
>
> TeX treats this as (assuming ’simple’ macro definitions):
>
>   command a     (no arguments)
>   command \bold (a macro with one one braced argument)
>
> And by the time “\bold" is seen, the  “a” command has already been
> processed completely.
>
>
> In math mode, there *is* an expression state maintained, and that is why
> \over and \atop work.
>
>
> For further information and actual details, you can just look at the
> luatex source (it is in C):
>
>
> https://github.com/TeX-Live/luatex/blob/trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/maincontrol.c
>
> The function
>
>   void main_control(void)
>
> is the one that does all the heavy lifting (using a dispatch table).
>
> Taco
>
> > On 29 Jun 2020, at 12:15, Jairo A. del Rio <jairoadelrio6@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hans, after your explanation I'm actually curious now about details, but
> my knowledge is too limited now (maybe reading source codes would be
> better? Worse?). I do a bit of C, but I don't know about Pascal at all and
> I'm not sure where to start from in order to understand TeX better. Well,
> at least I know why that feature isn't supported. I'll be thankful for any
> references. Thank you very much.
> >
> > Jairo :)
> >
> > El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 02:28, Hans Hagen (j.hagen@xs4all.nl)
> escribió:
> > On 6/28/2020 10:48 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> > > I've read the following is not possible in TeX
> > >
> > > \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
> > >
> > > where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands
> > > like \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to
> do
> > > this in ConTeXt?
> > >
> > > Could it be a feature request for LuaMetaTeX? I've seen Hans
> > > experimenting a lot with new primitives and new possibilities for
> > > arguments, like #0 and co., so I ask in case it's not too nonsensical
> to
> > > propose it. Regards
> > Every \foo will be looked up, so by the time \macro in:
> >
> >    bla bla {\bf xxx}\macro{xxx}
> >
> > is seen, the {\bf xxx} is already passed and processed. TeX never looks
> > back, which actually would make for a pretty complex multipass parsing
> > and expansion management (forward control and backward: \expandafter
> > would then also have an \expandbefore companion). Even in the simple
> > case: should it keep track of quantities done (grouped, single token,
> > box, etc.) and then in retrospect see it as #1 (them being nodes by now
> > and not tokens)?
> >
> > So, why in math but not in text? The \atop and \over (those are
> > basically all the same command but with a different treatment
> > afterwards) are an exception: (1) tex knows that is is in math mode, and
> > in math mode the { } are not really arguments but defines some stuff
> > handled together. Much processing (not all) is delayed to a second pass,
> > so {1}\over{2} internally becomes \over{1}{2} and even that is kind of
> > tricky because there are math styles involved (which makes for some hard
> > coded behaviour that in the perspective of luametatex i try to get more
> > grip on). Now, in order to handle this one (!) exception to lookahead
> > parsing, special tracking happens in math mode, the previous math
> > grouped stuff is registered and adapted to the \over when seen,
> > otherwise it stays as is. This exception also maked the code somewhat
> > messier because there are several spots where it has to be dealt with
> > (also think of saving and restoring states). Just imagine that there
> > were more such commands. Believe me, you really don't want to know the
> > details.
> >
> > So the answer is "Can't be done without overhauling the whole concept".
> >
> > Now, I know that the narrative is that context is a moving target
> > (contrary to other macro packages that don't / can't change because
> > users / publishers expect them to behave the same forever) so one can
> > argue that for context we can follow a drastic different route, but even
> > then, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot too often. I know that some
> > people (read: Alan) love these {{}\foo{}} syntaxes but live would have
> > been simpler if even \over has not be in there with prefix notation
> > (there is a reason why macro package have \frac like variants).
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
> >                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
> >         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> > If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry
> to the Wiki!
> >
> > maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> > webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> > archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> > wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> >
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Taco Hoekwater
> Elvenkind BV
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8668 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[luigi scarso]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:48 PM Jairo A. del Rio <jairoadelrio6@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've read the following is not possible in TeX
>
> \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
>
> where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands like
> \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do this in
> ConTeXt?
>
>
you can build a lpeg and parse the your "extended tex" source, obtaining a
valid tex source.


-- 
luigi

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 938 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Jairo A. del Rio]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

Wouldn't it be slow for larger documents? I will try anyway. By the way,
I've seen Lua(La)TeX users recurring to callbacks (process input buffer) to
make string replacements and I've done so myself sometimes. Does ConTeXt do
preprocessing the same way or is a better alternative possible? Thank you
very much.

Jairo :)

El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 02:50, luigi scarso (
luigi.scarso@gmail.com) escribió:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:48 PM Jairo A. del Rio <jairoadelrio6@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've read the following is not possible in TeX
>>
>> \def#1\macro{blabla#1}
>>
>> where arguments come before. The only partial exceptions are commands
>> like \atop or \over, which are in fact primitives. Is there a way to do
>> this in ConTeXt?
>>
>>
> you can build a lpeg and parse the your "extended tex" source, obtaining a
> valid tex source.
>
>
> --
> luigi
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2656 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Hans Hagen]

On 6/29/2020 12:21 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> Wouldn't it be slow for larger documents? I will try anyway. By the way, 
> I've seen Lua(La)TeX users recurring to callbacks (process input buffer) 
> to make string replacements and I've done so myself sometimes. Does 
> ConTeXt do preprocessing the same way or is a better alternative 
> possible? Thank you very much.
You mean "Does context use callbacks?" You can bet on that. It is how we 
came to implementing callbacks (over a decade ago now, Taco and I spend 
quite some time exploring all these things in the process of luatex dev 
... fond memories and so).

I don't know what latex does but context doesn't do much input 
processing apart from some unicode related juggling. There are plenty of 
ways to hook in additional processing but there are multiple ways to 
solve problems. Most of these mechanism in context are already pretty 
old and hardly change.

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Jairo A. del Rio]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2303 bytes --]

Oh, I was just asking about

luatexbase.add_to_callback("process_input_buffer", blabla, "blabla" )

and


luatexbase.remove_from_callback("process_input_buffer", "blabla" )

LuaLaTeX users do that way and I want to be sure it won't interfere
with ConTeXt way of doing things so I can play with the suggestion
made by Luigi.

Regards,

Jairo :)


El lun., 29 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 08:27, Hans Hagen (j.hagen@xs4all.nl)
escribió:

> On 6/29/2020 12:21 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be slow for larger documents? I will try anyway. By the way,
> > I've seen Lua(La)TeX users recurring to callbacks (process input buffer)
> > to make string replacements and I've done so myself sometimes. Does
> > ConTeXt do preprocessing the same way or is a better alternative
> > possible? Thank you very much.
> You mean "Does context use callbacks?" You can bet on that. It is how we
> came to implementing callbacks (over a decade ago now, Taco and I spend
> quite some time exploring all these things in the process of luatex dev
> ... fond memories and so).
>
> I don't know what latex does but context doesn't do much input
> processing apart from some unicode related juggling. There are plenty of
> ways to hook in additional processing but there are multiple ways to
> solve problems. Most of these mechanism in context are already pretty
> old and hardly change.
>
> Hans
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4380 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

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

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Commands with arguments before in ConTeXt

[Hans Hagen]

On 6/29/2020 3:48 PM, Jairo A. del Rio wrote:
> |Oh, I was just asking about
> 
> luatexbase.add_to_callback("process_input_buffer", blabla, "blabla" )|
> |
> |
> 
> |and
> |
> 
> |
> luatexbase.remove_from_callback("process_input_buffer", "blabla" )
> 
> |

We always had such things but I never advertise their usage.
> |LuaLaTeX users do that way and I want to be sure it won't interfere 
> with ConTeXt way of doing things so I can play with the suggestion made 
> by Luigi.
Well, good luck with that as it will never be robust (apart from 
possible performance issues) ... make sure you also parse macros and 
included styles and everything that can contain some nested funny 
syntax. (Read: when there are issues with that kind of parsing and 
interference with other preprocessing etc etc users are on their own i 
guess.)

hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________