Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:11:28 +0200
Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7ALBTa4032137
	for <rainer.schoepf@PROTEOSYS.COM>; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:11:29 +0200
Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94])
	by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7AL7vdj030682
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:07:58 +0200
Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7AG7sDD014993;
	Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:07:57 +0200
Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with
          spool id 300528 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 10 Aug
          2009 23:07:57 +0200
Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de
          [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with
          ESMTP id n7AL7vcA005206 for <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>;
          Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:07:57 +0200
Received: from anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net
          [195.173.77.132]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with
          ESMTP id n7AL7kdd030580 for <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>;
          Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:07:49 +0200
Received: from cremornelane.demon.co.uk ([80.177.25.195] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by
          anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) id
          1Mac5r-0006so-hB for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 10 Aug
          2009 21:07:47 +0000
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4A7921CF.5020803@morningstar2.co.uk> <4A8072A6.9080005@elzevir.fr>
            <4A807946.5060707@morningstar2.co.uk> <4A8083E3.7080009@elzevir.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4A808C25.7030501@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:07:49 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: xparse
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4A8083E3.7080009@elzevir.fr>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>,
           <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE?body=INFO%20LATEX-L>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Owner: <mailto:LATEX-L-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>
X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -6.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197
Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2009 21:11:28.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[20377260:01CA19FF]
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 5869

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote:
>> Remember, though, that *everything* xparse makes is \protected. So a
>> function created with xparse will be trying to do \peek_<whatever> in an
>> expansion situation.
> 
> AFAIK, the beginning of a cell in an alignment is a expansion situation and the
> \protected doesn't help here.

A quick test confirms this (I'm nothing like an expert on \halign!)

> Thinking of it, it's not only about peeking functions, but about the whole
> parser, which should (optionally) work purely by expansion, so that no
> unexpandable token appears before the development of the actual user macro, thus
> allowing to define and effectively use macros involving \omit or \noalign.
> 
> With current \newcommand, the "parser" has this property if there is no optional
> argument (for the simple reason that there is no parser in this case) and could
> have it if \@testopt were replaced with eg \FE@testopt from etextools in other
> cases.
> 
> My question is: is it doable/desirable to allow defining macros having this
> property with xparse? It may involve a lot of changes in the implementation,
> hence not be worth trying. However, I hope it was worth at least raising the
> question.

There is a bigger issue than simply \peek_<whatever> here. With
\newcommand, it is only the first argument that is ever checked, so it
is possible to do things in an expandable fashion. I assume that it is
feasible to do the same for the first n arguments. However, with xparse
there is the possibility to do:

\DeclareDocumentCommand \foo { o m o m } % Or whatever syntax!

which I don't see being easy (possible?) to do in an expandable way.
You've then got to factor in the parallel question about
post-processing: this would pretty certainly fail. (That is before you
factor in other argument types.)

I guess that using LuaTeX this type of thing becomes a lot easier.  I
wonder if this is a case where as Jonathan Fine suggests we are trying
to do things TeX macros simply cannot do because of the nature of TeX
(even with the various extensions).
-- 
Joseph Wright