Code hook after variable setting actions in l3keys
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am trying out l3keys
for the first time and I am encountering the following issue. I have some boolean keys (true/false). For them it looks nice to use .bool_set:N
so that I can get automatic validation of the value passed into the key and I also get the key value nicely stored in a boolean variable for later inspection.
At the same time, I would like to execute some code right after the variable is set. However, it looks like .code:n
and bool_set:N
cannot be used together on the same key, because the one that comes later substitutes the action of the first. In practice, there seems to be no possibility to run a hook triggered by the variable setting action.
Obviously, there are several possible workarounds:
run some code after every
key_set:nn
.
However, this means that such code needs to check for every possible variable being set to see if it has changed and take action accordingly. If you have say 30 variables, this means checking all of them, when maybe only one of them is being changed. Having a hook invoked just for the variable that has been set seems more appropriate as long as the variables do not interact one with the other.use
.code:n
instead of the variable setting actions.
However, this means redoing the parsing and validation of the value.
Because all the workarounds seem to have inefficiencies of their own, I wonder if I am missing something... Any help is appreciated!
l3keys
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am trying out l3keys
for the first time and I am encountering the following issue. I have some boolean keys (true/false). For them it looks nice to use .bool_set:N
so that I can get automatic validation of the value passed into the key and I also get the key value nicely stored in a boolean variable for later inspection.
At the same time, I would like to execute some code right after the variable is set. However, it looks like .code:n
and bool_set:N
cannot be used together on the same key, because the one that comes later substitutes the action of the first. In practice, there seems to be no possibility to run a hook triggered by the variable setting action.
Obviously, there are several possible workarounds:
run some code after every
key_set:nn
.
However, this means that such code needs to check for every possible variable being set to see if it has changed and take action accordingly. If you have say 30 variables, this means checking all of them, when maybe only one of them is being changed. Having a hook invoked just for the variable that has been set seems more appropriate as long as the variables do not interact one with the other.use
.code:n
instead of the variable setting actions.
However, this means redoing the parsing and validation of the value.
Because all the workarounds seem to have inefficiencies of their own, I wonder if I am missing something... Any help is appreciated!
l3keys
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am trying out l3keys
for the first time and I am encountering the following issue. I have some boolean keys (true/false). For them it looks nice to use .bool_set:N
so that I can get automatic validation of the value passed into the key and I also get the key value nicely stored in a boolean variable for later inspection.
At the same time, I would like to execute some code right after the variable is set. However, it looks like .code:n
and bool_set:N
cannot be used together on the same key, because the one that comes later substitutes the action of the first. In practice, there seems to be no possibility to run a hook triggered by the variable setting action.
Obviously, there are several possible workarounds:
run some code after every
key_set:nn
.
However, this means that such code needs to check for every possible variable being set to see if it has changed and take action accordingly. If you have say 30 variables, this means checking all of them, when maybe only one of them is being changed. Having a hook invoked just for the variable that has been set seems more appropriate as long as the variables do not interact one with the other.use
.code:n
instead of the variable setting actions.
However, this means redoing the parsing and validation of the value.
Because all the workarounds seem to have inefficiencies of their own, I wonder if I am missing something... Any help is appreciated!
l3keys
New contributor
I am trying out l3keys
for the first time and I am encountering the following issue. I have some boolean keys (true/false). For them it looks nice to use .bool_set:N
so that I can get automatic validation of the value passed into the key and I also get the key value nicely stored in a boolean variable for later inspection.
At the same time, I would like to execute some code right after the variable is set. However, it looks like .code:n
and bool_set:N
cannot be used together on the same key, because the one that comes later substitutes the action of the first. In practice, there seems to be no possibility to run a hook triggered by the variable setting action.
Obviously, there are several possible workarounds:
run some code after every
key_set:nn
.
However, this means that such code needs to check for every possible variable being set to see if it has changed and take action accordingly. If you have say 30 variables, this means checking all of them, when maybe only one of them is being changed. Having a hook invoked just for the variable that has been set seems more appropriate as long as the variables do not interact one with the other.use
.code:n
instead of the variable setting actions.
However, this means redoing the parsing and validation of the value.
Because all the workarounds seem to have inefficiencies of their own, I wonder if I am missing something... Any help is appreciated!
l3keys
l3keys
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Dec 15 at 16:27
Callegar
461
461
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
This is not a real solution, more like a viable workaround:
You could create a .meta:n
key, that is the documented front-facing key, and two additional keys, one for the .bool_set:N
, and one for the .code:n
:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-bool .meta:n = { my-bool-bool = { #1 }, my-bool-code = { #1 } },
my-bool-bool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-bool-code .code:n =
{ Execute~Some~Code~for~bool_if:NTF l_Callegar_bool { true } { false } }
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-bool=true}
end{document}
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The following redefines an internal function of the l3keys
module and might therefore break stuff in the future. Use with caution.
After digging a bit through the l3keys
code, I thought one could add a hook to the keys. The following does so by adding a hook mechanism to __keys_cmd_set:nn
. After that one can define a hook with:
keys_define:nn { <module> } { <key> .hook:n = { <hook code> } }
I didn't test it thoroughly, but as far as a quick view l3keys
could tell, the hook mechanism should work with any key type. Note that it doesn't create any key on its own, so you have to use it on an already defined key.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
% redefine a part of the internals of l3keys
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{ #2 use:c { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } }
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
tl_gset:cn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-fool=true}
setmykeys{my-fool=false}
end{document}
A slightly different implementation that also allows .hook:n
to access the value:
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{
#2
cs_if_exist_use:cT { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } { { ##1 } }
}
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
cs_set:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } ##1 { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless~'#1' },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?
– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals ofl3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So iffoo_hook
exists,cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands tofoo_hook { ##1 }
, andfoo_hook
can absorb that argument.
– Skillmon
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Callegar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465998%2fcode-hook-after-variable-setting-actions-in-l3keys%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
This is not a real solution, more like a viable workaround:
You could create a .meta:n
key, that is the documented front-facing key, and two additional keys, one for the .bool_set:N
, and one for the .code:n
:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-bool .meta:n = { my-bool-bool = { #1 }, my-bool-code = { #1 } },
my-bool-bool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-bool-code .code:n =
{ Execute~Some~Code~for~bool_if:NTF l_Callegar_bool { true } { false } }
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-bool=true}
end{document}
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This is not a real solution, more like a viable workaround:
You could create a .meta:n
key, that is the documented front-facing key, and two additional keys, one for the .bool_set:N
, and one for the .code:n
:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-bool .meta:n = { my-bool-bool = { #1 }, my-bool-code = { #1 } },
my-bool-bool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-bool-code .code:n =
{ Execute~Some~Code~for~bool_if:NTF l_Callegar_bool { true } { false } }
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-bool=true}
end{document}
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This is not a real solution, more like a viable workaround:
You could create a .meta:n
key, that is the documented front-facing key, and two additional keys, one for the .bool_set:N
, and one for the .code:n
:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-bool .meta:n = { my-bool-bool = { #1 }, my-bool-code = { #1 } },
my-bool-bool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-bool-code .code:n =
{ Execute~Some~Code~for~bool_if:NTF l_Callegar_bool { true } { false } }
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-bool=true}
end{document}
This is not a real solution, more like a viable workaround:
You could create a .meta:n
key, that is the documented front-facing key, and two additional keys, one for the .bool_set:N
, and one for the .code:n
:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-bool .meta:n = { my-bool-bool = { #1 }, my-bool-code = { #1 } },
my-bool-bool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-bool-code .code:n =
{ Execute~Some~Code~for~bool_if:NTF l_Callegar_bool { true } { false } }
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-bool=true}
end{document}
answered Dec 15 at 18:36
Skillmon
21k11941
21k11941
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The following redefines an internal function of the l3keys
module and might therefore break stuff in the future. Use with caution.
After digging a bit through the l3keys
code, I thought one could add a hook to the keys. The following does so by adding a hook mechanism to __keys_cmd_set:nn
. After that one can define a hook with:
keys_define:nn { <module> } { <key> .hook:n = { <hook code> } }
I didn't test it thoroughly, but as far as a quick view l3keys
could tell, the hook mechanism should work with any key type. Note that it doesn't create any key on its own, so you have to use it on an already defined key.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
% redefine a part of the internals of l3keys
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{ #2 use:c { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } }
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
tl_gset:cn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-fool=true}
setmykeys{my-fool=false}
end{document}
A slightly different implementation that also allows .hook:n
to access the value:
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{
#2
cs_if_exist_use:cT { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } { { ##1 } }
}
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
cs_set:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } ##1 { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless~'#1' },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?
– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals ofl3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So iffoo_hook
exists,cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands tofoo_hook { ##1 }
, andfoo_hook
can absorb that argument.
– Skillmon
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The following redefines an internal function of the l3keys
module and might therefore break stuff in the future. Use with caution.
After digging a bit through the l3keys
code, I thought one could add a hook to the keys. The following does so by adding a hook mechanism to __keys_cmd_set:nn
. After that one can define a hook with:
keys_define:nn { <module> } { <key> .hook:n = { <hook code> } }
I didn't test it thoroughly, but as far as a quick view l3keys
could tell, the hook mechanism should work with any key type. Note that it doesn't create any key on its own, so you have to use it on an already defined key.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
% redefine a part of the internals of l3keys
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{ #2 use:c { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } }
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
tl_gset:cn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-fool=true}
setmykeys{my-fool=false}
end{document}
A slightly different implementation that also allows .hook:n
to access the value:
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{
#2
cs_if_exist_use:cT { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } { { ##1 } }
}
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
cs_set:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } ##1 { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless~'#1' },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?
– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals ofl3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So iffoo_hook
exists,cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands tofoo_hook { ##1 }
, andfoo_hook
can absorb that argument.
– Skillmon
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The following redefines an internal function of the l3keys
module and might therefore break stuff in the future. Use with caution.
After digging a bit through the l3keys
code, I thought one could add a hook to the keys. The following does so by adding a hook mechanism to __keys_cmd_set:nn
. After that one can define a hook with:
keys_define:nn { <module> } { <key> .hook:n = { <hook code> } }
I didn't test it thoroughly, but as far as a quick view l3keys
could tell, the hook mechanism should work with any key type. Note that it doesn't create any key on its own, so you have to use it on an already defined key.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
% redefine a part of the internals of l3keys
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{ #2 use:c { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } }
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
tl_gset:cn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-fool=true}
setmykeys{my-fool=false}
end{document}
A slightly different implementation that also allows .hook:n
to access the value:
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{
#2
cs_if_exist_use:cT { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } { { ##1 } }
}
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
cs_set:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } ##1 { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless~'#1' },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
The following redefines an internal function of the l3keys
module and might therefore break stuff in the future. Use with caution.
After digging a bit through the l3keys
code, I thought one could add a hook to the keys. The following does so by adding a hook mechanism to __keys_cmd_set:nn
. After that one can define a hook with:
keys_define:nn { <module> } { <key> .hook:n = { <hook code> } }
I didn't test it thoroughly, but as far as a quick view l3keys
could tell, the hook mechanism should work with any key type. Note that it doesn't create any key on its own, so you have to use it on an already defined key.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{xparse}
ExplSyntaxOn
% redefine a part of the internals of l3keys
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{ #2 use:c { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } }
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
tl_gset:cn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
NewDocumentCommand setmykeys { m }
{
keys_set:nn { Callegar } { #1 }
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
setmykeys{my-fool=true}
setmykeys{my-fool=false}
end{document}
A slightly different implementation that also allows .hook:n
to access the value:
cs_set_protected:Npn __keys_cmd_set:nn #1#2
{
cs_set_protected:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 } ##1
{
#2
cs_if_exist_use:cT { c__keys_code_root_tl #1 _hook } { { ##1 } }
}
}
% add the .hook:n type
cs_new_protected:cpn { c__keys_props_root_tl .hook:n } #1
{
cs_set:cpn { c__keys_code_root_tl l_keys_path_tl _hook } ##1 { #1 }
}
keys_define:nn { Callegar }
{
my-fool .bool_set:N = l_Callegar_bool,
my-fool .hook:n = { Execute~Some~Code~Regardless~'#1' },
my-fool / true .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~true },
my-fool / false .hook:n =
{ Execute~Some~Hook~Code~for~false },
}
edited Dec 15 at 21:36
answered Dec 15 at 20:12
Skillmon
21k11941
21k11941
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?
– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals ofl3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So iffoo_hook
exists,cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands tofoo_hook { ##1 }
, andfoo_hook
can absorb that argument.
– Skillmon
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?
– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals ofl3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So iffoo_hook
exists,cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands tofoo_hook { ##1 }
, andfoo_hook
can absorb that argument.
– Skillmon
yesterday
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,
__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?– Callegar
yesterday
Thanks Skillmon, that's interesting although by being a new on l3keys its hard for me to read its code to understand how you are touching its internals. If I get it correctly,
__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal used to associate code to the keys, 1st argument is the key path and 2nd one is the code itself, is this the OK? So you are imposing that after the regular code the hook code is used, is this correct? What puzzles me a bit is the role of all those constants. Furthermore, the variant is a little obscure to me in how it passes ##1 to the hook. Could you help me understand?– Callegar
yesterday
@Callegar yes,
__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals of l3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So if foo_hook
exists, cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands to foo_hook { ##1 }
, and foo_hook
can absorb that argument.– Skillmon
yesterday
@Callegar yes,
__keys_cmd_set:nn
is the internal to actually define a key and most/all key types are using it internally. All those constants are internals of l3keys
, too, which are supposed to assure no naming conflicts.The variant checks whether the hook has been defined (cs_if_exist_use:cT
), and if it does it inputs the control sequence and the next argument, stripping one pair of braces. So if foo_hook
exists, cs_if_exist_use:cT { foo_hook } { { ##1 } }
expands to foo_hook { ##1 }
, and foo_hook
can absorb that argument.– Skillmon
yesterday
add a comment |
Callegar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Callegar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Callegar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Callegar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465998%2fcode-hook-after-variable-setting-actions-in-l3keys%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown