[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by Didier Ver » Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:47:43



Hi !

What are the compared merits of verbatim's comment environment and the
comment package ?

I just need to be able to \let\foo\comment\let\endfoo\endcomment.


Thanks.

--
Didier Verna, XXXX@XXXXX.COM , http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 
 

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by rf » Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:15:30


Didier Verna < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

neither will let you do that: because they're verbatim-like
environments, you have to program their reuse.

comment.sty is painfully verbose (imo), but it does at least provide
\includecomment / \excludecomment facilities. (i dislike its way of
recycling included comments through an external file, too.)

i don't actually recall whether verbatim tells you how to reuse its
comment command, but even if not, it's hardly "tricky".

personally, i would rather have a "quiet" version of comment.sty that
uses token lists and \scantokens rather than the external file. one
day i'll write it for my faq.sty, but until then i continue to use
comment.sty
--
Robin ( http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ) Fairbairns, Cambridge

 
 
 

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by Didier Ver » Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:49:35


Actually, the verbatim package lets you do that. I'm also satisfied
with \excludecomment, but I was wondering about verbatim's comment potential
restrictions (like, the opening and endings have to be on a line of their own,
stuff like that).


--
Didier Verna, XXXX@XXXXX.COM , http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 
 

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by rf » Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:20:23


Didier Verna < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


ah; i misunderstood you. sure, you can define an environment foo,
that way. however, there's some package (i can't remember which) that
allows you to compose a _command_ \foo that will ignore everything up
to \endfoo. (it may be one of those packages that relies on
well-behaved stuff in the region ignored -- but then

\def\foo#1\endfoo{}

does that with rather little need for extra "mechanism".)
--
Robin ( http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ) Fairbairns, Cambridge
 
 
 

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by see.si » Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:48:37


Explain?


That's kind of a necessary evil given all the other *** you are able to
do when you use an external file. But maybe I should make a shortcut for
that common case.

V.


--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: www cs utk edu tilde lastname
 
 
 

[Q] verbatim's comment vs. comment's comment

Post by rf » Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:07:55


XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Victor Eijkhout) writes:


i don't like packages that report successes to the terminal (including
those that use \typeout rather than the \ProvidesPackage mechanism --
typeout puts information on the terminal while the other puts stuff in
the log).

of _course_ comment.sty is

Excluding comment 'comment'

that's what it's for. with a significantly configurable document like
the faq, there's lots of those.


i'm not sure you can avoid it and still maintain robustness in face of
ill-behaved included material (i never claimed it was a rational
dislike ;-). detecting the presence of e-tex extensions, and using
\scantokens of a token register, instead, would be welcome, though.
--
Robin ( http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ) Fairbairns, Cambridge