MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <55D6114D.4050100@clear.net.nz>
            <CANQYN6xYw_n5htc4OdhstpqNfLm3V4=cUEgaHYutz-KiSxAReg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-ID:  <CA+jHFwR4D3AQJbfhHpHfAN_=pPez9jZxgJ_PVCUgfKS0_8hwCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:04:27 +0930
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: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: peek functions
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <CANQYN6xYw_n5htc4OdhstpqNfLm3V4=cUEgaHYutz-KiSxAReg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Bruno Le Floch <blflatex@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Such code may be simplified (and sped up a bit) if we provided a
> \peek_case_charcode:NnTF function.  Is there interest for such an
> additional function?
>
> Actually, looking at mhchem a bit more, it seems that there is
> probably room for simplification if we provided better tools for
> parsing.

Yes, I think that would be sensible — I do some (somewhat manual)
peeking in unicode-math (looking ahead for superscript chars, etc.)
and the nesting of the code is pretty ugly. This could be an area that
could also benefit from a more structured way to do "do this and
gobble until marker if true, else another test" code pattern that
we've briefly discussed.

I should revisit *why* I thought the built-in peek functions weren't
enough when I first wrote the code... it's probable that things have
changed in the kernel since then.

Cheers,
Will