3 ms·
> but no macro language Any reason for that? The rest of your description looks very attractive, but why would I prefer a language without macros? I need con
by enriquto 6y ago
> but no macro language
Any reason for that? The rest of your description looks very attractive, but why would I prefer a language without macros? I need conditional compilation, setting variables, parametrized notations, etc. This is extremely useful when preparing a scientific document. If anything, I don't really care about the document preparation language itself, but it must have macros to be useful!
- dhosek 6y agoTo clarify, there would still be programmability, just not via macro expansion. Instead of macros there would be first-class variables instead of TeX's mix of registers and macros to emulate that. Instead of having to deal with the timing of macro expansions and all the pitfalls therein, an embedded scripting language would be available to handle complex settings (I'm leaning towards Python at the moment, but I'm far from having to make a decision on that topic). First-class flow control will also be available (right now, things like \foreach and \ifXXX are handled via macro expansion which causes a lot of pain beyond simple use cases).
- enriquto 6y agoOK, that's reassuring! What you describe sounds pretty much like a "macro language" to me (i.e., a separate language to describe your document). But this is just a question of terminology, somewhat arbitrary. Being able to generate the text of your document is a very powerful tool and, according to what you say, it will be even more powerful.