\newcommand problem

tex >> \newcommand problem

by enjoyfate » Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:04:10 GMT

Using fancyvrb package, the code below can make a box arrow the text.
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
$ ls
\end{Verbatim}
but every time input so many characters, it's boring. I wanna to turn
it to \bat{$ls } by using \newcommand
so I write codes below
\newcommand{\bat}[1]{\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
#1
\end{Verbatim}
but can't compile pass. How to archive the purpose.
Any hints would be appreciated

Top

On Jul 25, 11:04m, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote: > Using fancyvrb ackage, the code below can make a box arrow the text. > \begin{Verbatim}[frame=single] > $ ls > \end{Verbatim} > but every time input so many haracters, it's boring. I wanna to turn > it to \bat{$ls } by sing newcommand > so I write codes below > \newcommand{\bat}[1]{\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single] > #1 > \end{Verbatim} > but can't compile pass. How to archive the purpose. > Any hints would be appreciated You'll be hard-pressed to make this work, unfortunately. The reason is that (while I'm not actually familiar with fancyvrb, I can speculate) in general, verbatim modes work by changing the way TeX reads the characters (technically, the "category codes") that are inside the environment. In particular, it needs to sanitize the $ so that TeX doesn't read it as a math shift but rather as a plain letter. But when you pass text as an argument to a macro, as in \bat{$ls}, TeX has already read the entire argument and decided what type of character everything is, so there's no chance for the verbatim to work its magic. So the (not so) short answer is "don't do that" and just use the verbatim environment like it's meant to be used. But there's still hope, on two conditions. IF it's just the '$' giving you trouble, AND if you never use '$' as a math shift (you can avoid it by using $...$ instead), then you can just change the catcode yourself, by inserting \catcode`\$=12 in your document. But at this point, the Verbatim environment isn't really doing much anymore so you may be able to replace it with something less potent. You can, in fact, do this trick with any special character as long as you don't ever use it (#, %, &, ~, ^, and _ should all work if you don't need them elsewhere (this includes comments)... I don't recommend trying \ unless you really know what you're doing). Cheers, steve

I have found a piece of latex code (in the texmate package) like this: \def\wname{} \def\bname{} \let\@welo\relax \let\@belo\relax \newcommand\whitename[1]{\def\wname{#1}} \newcommand\blackname[1]{\def\bname{#1}} \newcommand*\whiteelo[1]{\def\@welo{(#1)}} \newcommand*\blackelo[1]{\def\@belo{(#1)}} What is the difference between using \newcommand* and \let...\relax vs. \newcommand and \def?

Forgive me if this has been answered - I haven't been able to find any solutions on here or the internets. I am constantly using the same formatting of a bytefield/bitfields to describe the MIPS instruction set in my own words. Because of this I would like to create a new command called \macineCode that takes 6 arguments. Currently I have: \newcommand{\machineCode}[6]{\begin{bytefield}{32} \bitheader[b]{0,5,6,10,11,15,16,20,21,25,26,31}\\ \bitbox{6}{#1} &\bitbox{5}{#2} & \bitbox{5}{#3} & \bitbox{5}{#4} & \bitbox{5}{#5} & \bitbox{6}{#6} \\ \end{bytefield} } When trying to typeset it, I get the following error twice on the line that I call \machineCode: Extra alignment tab has been changed to \cr. \endtemplate I am trying to make it look like this: \begin{tabular}{lrlrlrlrlrlr} 31&26&25&21&20&16&15&11&10&6&5&0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{000000}}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Rs}}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Rt}}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Rd}}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{00000}}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{100000}} \\ \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{opcode}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{shamt}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{func} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{6}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{5}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{5}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{5}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{5}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{6} \\ \end{tabular}

For the attention, in particular, of Oleg Paraschenko. Oleg Paraschenko wrote: >> Could you please provide more details, then I'll fix the problem. Dear Sir, Ref your message to comp.text.tex, dated Wed 05 July 2006 First, I am sorry not to have replied sooner. I only noticed yesterday that you had replied to my message. Secondly, my comments are much less important in the new version of texml, with the attribute 'escape' to the <TeXML> element. I think my problems with obtaining \newcommand{...} in TeXML format were mainly related to the use of <cmd> embedded in an outer <cmd>. To illustrate these difficulties, I have put a story together as a (slightly fictional) version of me climbing the texml learning curve. Here it is, with the failed attempts commented out. +++++++ snip -------------------------- ++++++++++++++ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <TeXML> <TeXML escape="0"> \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \newcommand{\Fred}[1]{Fred said \emph{#1}{}} </TeXML>    <cmd name="newcommand"><parm><spec cat="esc" />Harry</parm> <opt>1</opt> <parm>Harry said, <TeXML ligatures="1">``<spec cat="parm" />1''</TeXML></parm> </cmd>   <cmd name="newcommand"><parm><spec cat="esc"/>John</parm> <opt>1</opt> <parm>John said <spec cat="esc"/>textsc <spec cat="bg"/> <spec cat="parm" />1 <spec cat="eg"/> </parm> </cmd>  <env name="document"> <cmd name="Fred"><parm>Hi, there!</parm></cmd><cmd name="par" />  <cmd name="Harry"><parm>Good morning.</parm></cmd><cmd name="par" />  <cmd name="John"><parm>G'day to you!</parm></cmd><cmd name="par" />  </env> </TeXML>

tex, \newcommand problem

tex >> \newcommand problem