[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: serious flaw of @c
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: serious flaw of @c |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:03:51 -0600 |
This demonstrates that address@hidden' is not the same as `%' in TeX :-(
Of course not. They aren't even remotely similar. I don't know any way
to make a comment character in texinfo.tex, i.e., a way to say
\let\foo=%. Do you? There are no characters available to make be
catcode 14, as far as I've ever been able to think of.
A fix would require that
These changes seem to amount to rewriting the majority of texinfo.tex.
That's not going to happen, at least not by me. Sorry.
A huge amount of work has gone into newline handling already. I rather
suspect that any change will make it worse.
Besides being a very ugly (undocumented) deficiency, a working
solution is quite important for the address@hidden' trick within macros (if
expanded with `texi2dvi -E').
Sorry, I have no solution. You probably know more about Texinfo macros
than I do by now. Lilypond and/or groff are continually stretching
Texinfo to its utter limits and I think you have just surpassed them.
Forgetting about the current @macro stupidity, can you think of a
different design for macros altogether that would be alleviate these
issues? I have not been able to think of any good way to deal with the
different way newlines are used.
Sorry.
karl
- serious flaw of @c, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/11/21
- Re: serious flaw of @c,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/11/21
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Karl Berry, 2008/11/21
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/11/22
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Karl Berry, 2008/11/23
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Patrice Dumas, 2008/11/25
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/11/25
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/11/22
- Re: serious flaw of @c, Karl Berry, 2008/11/23