On 2013–08–26 Hans Hagen wrote:
> not a bug ... just not implemented (as it's pretty complex to do
> that case efficiently at the tex end)
>
> anyhow, as it seems to be needed, i redid the code and now we have:
>
> […]
>
> so, three optional qualifiers (also in that order), so you'd better
> wi
On 8/25/2013 9:09 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
On 2013–08–25 Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
The \starttexdefintion command looks for the “unexpanded” keyword
only when you apply also a argument but not when the arguments
are missing, i.e.
Thanks for the explanation. Is that a bug or expected behaviour?
Am 25.08.2013 um 21:09 schrieb Marco Patzer :
> On 2013–08–25 Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
>
>> The \starttexdefintion command looks for the “unexpanded” keyword
>> only when you apply also a argument but not when the arguments
>> are missing, i.e.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Is that a bug or e
On 2013–08–25 Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
> The \starttexdefintion command looks for the “unexpanded” keyword
> only when you apply also a argument but not when the arguments
> are missing, i.e.
Thanks for the explanation. Is that a bug or expected behaviour?
I think it's odd that
\unexpanded\def
Am 25.08.2013 um 19:40 schrieb Marco Patzer :
> Hi,
>
> the following example produces an “Undefined control sequence”
> error. If \def is used instead of \starttexdefinition then there is
> no error. Why?
The \starttexdefintion command looks for the “unexpanded” keyword
only when you apply als
Hi,
the following example produces an “Undefined control sequence”
error. If \def is used instead of \starttexdefinition then there is
no error. Why?
\starttexcode
\installcommandhandler{foo}{foo}{foo}
\appendtoks
\setuevalue{start\currentfoo}{\foo@start[\currentfoo]}%%
\setuevalue{stop\curr
