Am Sonntag, 5. November 2006 00:19 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 11:27:49PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > This is wrong because \catcode works on 8-bit numbers. Please, change > > > the 128 to 256.
It was from memory. Obviously I am becoming old :-( > > Hum, as I understand it does not matter within our context if \catcode > > works on 8 bits or not. This CatCode table is just here to classify > > between the TeX catcodes, they are not really the catcode themselves > > (except for the 128 first catcodes that is). > > > > If you are sure that there is at least one catcode greater than 128 is > > classified as something other than catOther, I'll do the change. But > > from what I read about TeX catcode since then, I doubt it. > > Maybe you are right as, from what I can see, only the catcode of '@' is > ever changed in the LyX sources. However, if proper support for catcodes > will be implemented, we should mimic what TeX does, and TeX can deal > with 256 characters and not 128 as the comment you added implies -- please > change that. Quoting the very beginning of chapter 7 in the TeXbook: > > There are 256 characters that TeX might encounter at each step, > in a file or in a line of text typed directly on your terminal. > These 256 characters are classified into 16 categories numbered > 0 to 15. > > I think that we should leave the 256, but if you and others don't agree, > then please also make the corresponding changes to texparser.C Abdel is right that a table of 256 is not needed, since we never set the catcode of any character above 256 to something else than 256, and we need the if anyway. I have changed the comment accordingly, but if anybody else prefers 256 I have no problem with that either. BTW Abdel, we don't need the lyx:: qualification on char_ytep etc anymore, since everything is now in namespace lyx. Georg
