Karl Berry <[email protected]> writes: > 6) I recognize that you want me to just omit the \catcode`\\=0. That > may solve your problem, but it creates problems for other people doing > other things with @macro. For instance, you're invoking the macro with > a whole-line argument; macros taking braced arguments have a different > set of problems in this area.
Why would one do _any_ backslash processing on whole-line arguments? > So either way there are incompatibilities between the various > implementations, just different sets of incompatibilities. And what > texinfo.tex is doing now is what matches the documentation, as it > stands. I don't see where the documentation states that macro arguments need to get requoted at every call level. And I'm pretty sure that the current texinfo.tex behavior does _not_ match the HTML creation we use (which is why we needed to change texinfo.tex in the first place). > It's theoretically conceivable to change the TeX behavior (and > documentation) to be closer to makeinfo, but it would remain > inevitably imperfect, and be fraught with potential problems > (\futurelet, catcodes, etc.). Therefore I don't want to expend the > time and effort if any simpler solution will suffice. Well, the simple solution is that we continue to add our texinfo.tex changes. It's a bit of a nuisance but required to keep HTML working the same as both Info and PDF, and while I cannot vouch for our HTML production, our Info production definitely uses the standard Makeinfo. So I suspect that TeX may currently be the only backend that actually tries, however imperfectly, matching the documentation, thus diverging from the other backends. -- David Kastrup
