On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
if there is more demand for that i can consider making a
substituter that operates on the node list in an early stage; that
way it is controlled by attributes and there is no interference
with macro definitions, reading modules and such
Macro interaction may be an issue, but I believe it is still better
for transliterations to work on the actual input strings or on
tokens.
For example, you may want to run macros (like \delimitedtext) on the
converted output.
my main concern with that is that one then needs to control
precisely where to apply such translations; for instance turning a<
into something else might also mess up math and adding all kind of
extra checking and housekeeping (for instance when loading modules
or whatever in the middle of such a conversion)
of course when the to be converted fragments are tagged it's trivial
to use lpeg and avoid \cs's
btw, i think that delimitedtext would work anyway as we only replace
"glyph a glyph<" by something else then
anyway, it all depends on the task and hopefully unicode will solve
all our problems (and not introduce more)
Well, in my case the fragments are already delimited, so it's
relatively easy. However, I wonder whether there are many applications
for this. I don't see too many, but maybe I'm wrong. From my POV,
there is no need for this in the core, but maybe others see more usage.
Thomas
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
