On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 03:52, user202729--- via luatex <luatex@tug.org>
wrote:
>
> Currently, if there's an input level that is ended, TeX will try to remove
> it as soon as it's finished. For example, the following will create an
> infinite loop.
>
> ```
> \def\a{\b1}
> \def\b#1{\a}
> \a
> ```
>
> Not so when `tex.cprint()` or `tex.sprint()` is involved. The following
> code causes a "TeX capacity exceeded" issue.
>
> ```
> \def\a{\expandafter\b\directlua{tex.cprint(12,"1")}}
> \def\b#1{\a}
> \a
> ```
>
> This causes a problem because internally LaTeX `\char_generate:nn` macro
> (sometimes) uses `tex.cprint()` under the hood, and this creates issue such
> as https://github.com/latex3/latex3/issues/1540 .
>
> Do you think it would be reasonable modify the engine to pop the input
> level (i.e. call `end_token_list()`) of type `cprint` or `sprint` ? I think
> this is safe because, unlike the traditional reading from file with e.g.
> `\input`, there is no newline character in a line created with `tex.sprint`
> or `tex.cprint`, so there is no good reason to keep the empty suffix of a
> line behind.
>
> This may prove to be a nontrivial change however, because there are 7
> calls to `end_token_list()` scattered throughout the code. (Although I
> think only the one call in `inputstack.c` and two calls in `expand.c`
> matters.)
>
> There might be performance implication as well because of the additional
> checking whether the token list ended --- although this may not be as large
> of a concern as it appears because we can simply move the check to only
> when the input limit is exceeded.
>
> What do you think?
>
(sorry for the delay)
In these cases it's better to have a set of patches to discuss.
Of course, this set should fix a bug (but it doesn't seem the case here)
or, if not, it should not impact the performance and be backward compatible.
--
luigi
