On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006, at 22:55, Joel E. Denny wrote:
>
> > > Or so, was my idea with %code. I am not sure what the idea is to now add a
> > > much more lmited variation of that command - evidently it is not in 2.3.a.
> >
> > Does this not satisfy your needs?
> >
> > %define "NAME" { CODE }
>
> Apart from the ugly, redundant quotes around the macro name
I could argue both sides of that, but I think it's not worth the time.
Given that the above is consistent with the existing %define syntax, I'd
rather just leave it be.
> , there might be
> problems in the future, if the code part should be parsed according to
> language. Then %define is better reserved for verbatim macros, and %code for
> code placement.
For verbatim strings:
%define "NAME" "STRING"
For code that needs to be parsed:
%define "NAME" { CODE }
How does calling it %code in the second case solve the problem of multiple
languages?
I think I'm missing your point.
