[NTG-context] Re: defining macros

[Henning Hraban Ramm <texml@fiee.net>]

Am 11.01.25 um 12:30 schrieb Hans Hagen via ntg-context:
>> Sure.
>> I’m proud to have found several features that you forgot about ;)
> 
> ah, so you now make a nice certificate that you can put behind you when 
> we chat

Will do ;)
Do you also give out cheques? ;)

Back to macros (I read lowlevel-macros, at least tried to…):

While I liked \define, it looks like it just doesn’t make sense anymore 
if I need (\tolerant)\def for anything advanced anyway?

You stress how costly named macros are – then we should forget about 
MkLX mode?

Did I understand correctly, that bracketed = optional parameters is just 
a convention, i.e. only the handling of arguments makes them optional, 
not their definition/fencing?

With \tolerant, we can not only forget about the last dodos (and even 
single dos), but also about \dosingleargument & friends, right?
Are there cases where the MkIV way still makes sense with LMTX?

When does it make sense to define macros in Lua (interfaces.implement)?
Obviously, if I need calculations or I/O operations that are easier to 
do in Lua. Are there disadvantages of Lua-defined vs. TeX-defined  macros?

Hraban
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________