-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 277
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add \expandableinput #1679
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add \expandableinput #1679
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ | |
%<*driver> | ||
% \fi | ||
\ProvidesFile{ltexpl.dtx} | ||
[2024/04/17 v1.3h LaTeX Kernel (expl3-dependent code)] | ||
[2025/02/26 v1.3i LaTeX Kernel (expl3-dependent code)] | ||
% \iffalse | ||
\documentclass{ltxdoc} | ||
\GetFileInfo{ltexpl.dtx} | ||
|
@@ -549,4 +549,26 @@ | |
%<latexrelease>\EndIncludeInRelease | ||
% \end{macrocode} | ||
% | ||
% \begin{macro}{\expandableinput} | ||
% \changes{v1.3i}{2025/02/26}{Added document level name for \cs{file_input_raw:n} (gh/514)} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. if it is called raw here then perhaps \rawinput might be a better choice on the document level. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Was my initial thinking, but I wanted to see how it looked to others - and we had said 'expandable input' as a name (capitalisation not specified!) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. "expandable" seems to make more sense than "rawl, does it not? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Oops: should be "raw" ! There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As we discussed in the team meeting, getting general users to understand when they might need something expandable is hard - so I don't think there is a perfect name. I can live with There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think I'd prefer |
||
% \begin{macrocode} | ||
%<*2ekernel|latexrelease> | ||
%<latexrelease>\IncludeInRelease{2025/06/01}% | ||
%<latexrelease> {\expandableinput}{Expandable input}% | ||
\ExplSyntaxOn | ||
\cs_new_eq:NN \expandableinput \file_input_raw:n | ||
\ExplSyntaxOff | ||
% \end{macrocode} | ||
% \end{macro} | ||
% | ||
% \begin{macrocode} | ||
%</2ekernel|latexrelease> | ||
%<latexrelease>\EndIncludeInRelease | ||
%<latexrelease>\IncludeInRelease{0000/00/00}% | ||
%<latexrelease> {\expandableinput}{Expandable input}% | ||
%<latexrelease> | ||
%<latexrelease>\let\expandableinput\@undefined | ||
%<latexrelease>\EndIncludeInRelease | ||
% \end{macrocode} | ||
% | ||
% \Finale |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was the suggestion to use \ExpandableInput, not sure which is better or if there should/could be adifferent name
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wasn't sure if the name suggestion was all-lower or CamelCase - as this feels like a document command ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are "document commands" the CamelCase ones?