Expand all newcommand without doing anything else in LaTeX? [duplicate]
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
LaTeX macro expander
7 answers
Can I expand all newcommands without doing anything else in LaTeX?
Edited: My true goal is standardizing math papers in plain text so that theorems and definitions can be accurately and easily extracted without losing mathematical symbols.
macros
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
marked as duplicate by Werner macros
Users with the macros badge can single-handedly close macros questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 19 at 21:43
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
LaTeX macro expander
7 answers
Can I expand all newcommands without doing anything else in LaTeX?
Edited: My true goal is standardizing math papers in plain text so that theorems and definitions can be accurately and easily extracted without losing mathematical symbols.
macros
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
marked as duplicate by Werner macros
Users with the macros badge can single-handedly close macros questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 19 at 21:43
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
LaTeX macro expander
7 answers
Can I expand all newcommands without doing anything else in LaTeX?
Edited: My true goal is standardizing math papers in plain text so that theorems and definitions can be accurately and easily extracted without losing mathematical symbols.
macros
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
This question already has an answer here:
LaTeX macro expander
7 answers
Can I expand all newcommands without doing anything else in LaTeX?
Edited: My true goal is standardizing math papers in plain text so that theorems and definitions can be accurately and easily extracted without losing mathematical symbols.
This question already has an answer here:
LaTeX macro expander
7 answers
macros
macros
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
edited Nov 19 at 21:06
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
asked Nov 19 at 20:43
Ying Zhou
687
687
marked as duplicate by Werner macros
Users with the macros badge can single-handedly close macros questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 19 at 21:43
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Werner macros
Users with the macros badge can single-handedly close macros questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 19 at 21:43
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
There are several existing programs that do this in limited contexts for example
https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro
However it is in general not possible to expand all macros without a full tex execution.
Consider
newcommandfoo{ifxzzzundefined noelse yesfi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the state of TeX at that time or
newcommandfoo{sbox0{hello}ifdimwd0>2cm yeselse nofi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the width of some text set in the current font.
In simple cases the document will behave the same way if you expand the macros but for example if you expand zzz (and remove its definition) then the expansion of foo will change.
If however you are restricting to expanding out simple shortcut macros used for authoring convenience, which contain no conditional or recursive calls then simple string replacement in any text processing tool will probably do the right thing, on a good day.
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.newcommandfoobar{...}versusverb|foobar|orstringfoobarorcsname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition ofmacro.) Orcatcoder=13...def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides thislet-assignments might be nice, too:newcommandfoobar{...}` ...letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy ofxii.texin this answer, don't tempt me:-)
– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
There are several existing programs that do this in limited contexts for example
https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro
However it is in general not possible to expand all macros without a full tex execution.
Consider
newcommandfoo{ifxzzzundefined noelse yesfi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the state of TeX at that time or
newcommandfoo{sbox0{hello}ifdimwd0>2cm yeselse nofi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the width of some text set in the current font.
In simple cases the document will behave the same way if you expand the macros but for example if you expand zzz (and remove its definition) then the expansion of foo will change.
If however you are restricting to expanding out simple shortcut macros used for authoring convenience, which contain no conditional or recursive calls then simple string replacement in any text processing tool will probably do the right thing, on a good day.
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.newcommandfoobar{...}versusverb|foobar|orstringfoobarorcsname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition ofmacro.) Orcatcoder=13...def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides thislet-assignments might be nice, too:newcommandfoobar{...}` ...letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy ofxii.texin this answer, don't tempt me:-)
– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
There are several existing programs that do this in limited contexts for example
https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro
However it is in general not possible to expand all macros without a full tex execution.
Consider
newcommandfoo{ifxzzzundefined noelse yesfi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the state of TeX at that time or
newcommandfoo{sbox0{hello}ifdimwd0>2cm yeselse nofi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the width of some text set in the current font.
In simple cases the document will behave the same way if you expand the macros but for example if you expand zzz (and remove its definition) then the expansion of foo will change.
If however you are restricting to expanding out simple shortcut macros used for authoring convenience, which contain no conditional or recursive calls then simple string replacement in any text processing tool will probably do the right thing, on a good day.
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.newcommandfoobar{...}versusverb|foobar|orstringfoobarorcsname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition ofmacro.) Orcatcoder=13...def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides thislet-assignments might be nice, too:newcommandfoobar{...}` ...letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy ofxii.texin this answer, don't tempt me:-)
– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
There are several existing programs that do this in limited contexts for example
https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro
However it is in general not possible to expand all macros without a full tex execution.
Consider
newcommandfoo{ifxzzzundefined noelse yesfi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the state of TeX at that time or
newcommandfoo{sbox0{hello}ifdimwd0>2cm yeselse nofi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the width of some text set in the current font.
In simple cases the document will behave the same way if you expand the macros but for example if you expand zzz (and remove its definition) then the expansion of foo will change.
If however you are restricting to expanding out simple shortcut macros used for authoring convenience, which contain no conditional or recursive calls then simple string replacement in any text processing tool will probably do the right thing, on a good day.
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
There are several existing programs that do this in limited contexts for example
https://ctan.org/tex-archive/support/de-macro
However it is in general not possible to expand all macros without a full tex execution.
Consider
newcommandfoo{ifxzzzundefined noelse yesfi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the state of TeX at that time or
newcommandfoo{sbox0{hello}ifdimwd0>2cm yeselse nofi}
which expands to no or yes depending on the width of some text set in the current font.
In simple cases the document will behave the same way if you expand the macros but for example if you expand zzz (and remove its definition) then the expansion of foo will change.
If however you are restricting to expanding out simple shortcut macros used for authoring convenience, which contain no conditional or recursive calls then simple string replacement in any text processing tool will probably do the right thing, on a good day.
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
answered Nov 19 at 21:36
David Carlisle
477k3811061841
477k3811061841
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.newcommandfoobar{...}versusverb|foobar|orstringfoobarorcsname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition ofmacro.) Orcatcoder=13...def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides thislet-assignments might be nice, too:newcommandfoobar{...}` ...letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy ofxii.texin this answer, don't tempt me:-)
– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
add a comment |
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.newcommandfoobar{...}versusverb|foobar|orstringfoobarorcsname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition ofmacro.) Orcatcoder=13...def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides thislet-assignments might be nice, too:newcommandfoobar{...}` ...letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy ofxii.texin this answer, don't tempt me:-)
– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.
newcommandfoobar{...} versus verb|foobar| or stringfoobar or csname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition of macro.) Or catcoder=13... def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides this let-assignments might be nice, too: newcommandfoobar{...}` ... letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
Also consider that a phrase of tex-input might yield different tokens/different replacement depending on the catcode-régime at the time of tokenizing.
newcommandfoobar{...} versus verb|foobar| or stringfoobar or csname foobarmacroendcsname. (In the latter case, the result depends on the definition of macro.) Or catcoder=13... def r{<something>}...foobar... Besides this let-assignments might be nice, too: newcommandfoobar{...}` ... letfoobar=whatsoever...whatsoever.– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 10:10
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy of
xii.tex in this answer, don't tempt me:-)– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
@UlrichDiez I managed to avoid including a copy of
xii.tex in this answer, don't tempt me:-)– David Carlisle
Nov 20 at 10:45
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
I like your xii.tex. It reminds me of Michael Downes' Around the Bend questions 10 and 11 (Obfuscated TeX code / Decoding obfuscated TeX code).
– Ulrich Diez
Nov 20 at 11:00
add a comment |
No (maybe there exists an external program to preprocess your LaTeX file)
– Henri Menke
Nov 19 at 21:02
@HenriMenke Yeah I think I will just write one. It shouldn't be hard. It's pretty much just putting all new commands into a python dictionary and recursively substituting them to the point that they are all gone.
– Ying Zhou
Nov 19 at 21:04