On 17-4-2010 9:20, Philipp Gesang wrote:
Hi Peter, hi all!
On 2010-04-17<08:52:05>, Peter Münster wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16 2010, Philipp Gesang wrote:
I'd naively expect \track#1 to behave identically regardless of
interaction. How do I make it interaction-proof
Sorry, I had forgotten to answer your main-question:
\def\foottrack#1{\expanded{\footnote{\ctxlua{track.simple("#1")}}}}
Thanks very much, this does it!
and, if possible, how do I interaction-proof macros in general?
I don't know, but I suppose \expanded{} can help in most cases.
Adding that one to my “try first”-list seems reasonable. There's a macro
\expanded defined in syst-aux.mkiv but it mentions certain “recent TeXs”
that have it builtin as a primitive -- which one am I using in mkiv?
The LuaTeXbook mentions an extra primitive “\expanded” taken from
pdfTeX. Are they equivalent?
no, we had \expanded (and \protected and \unexpanded and ...) long
before they showed up as primitives
when \expanded was added, it was agreed that that name could be used
even if it clashed with context internals; ok, it add confusion for
users who use low level code, but as we always have \normalexpanded in
context it's no big deal; when in doubt, use \normal* for primitives (or
\primitive\expanded)
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
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 : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
