token register vs. macro register

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Consider the following simple code:



def@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 defreserved@a#2%
 defreserved@b#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@creserved@b
 else
 letreserved@creserved@a
 fi
 reserved@c


The same result can be achieved with:



toksdeftokszero0
toksdeftokstwo2
def@@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 tokszero#2%
 tokstwo#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@ctokstwo
 else
 letreserved@ctokszero
 fi
 thereserved@c


Is there any significant difference? (Aside from toksdef.) Which one is preferable?



(I can think of one difference. If either UNDEF or DEF contains #, then the macro register version would fail.)






tex-core







share|improve this question























  • In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
    – Manuel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
    – Joseph Wright♦
    1 hour ago














up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Consider the following simple code:



def@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 defreserved@a#2%
 defreserved@b#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@creserved@b
 else
 letreserved@creserved@a
 fi
 reserved@c


The same result can be achieved with:



toksdeftokszero0
toksdeftokstwo2
def@@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 tokszero#2%
 tokstwo#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@ctokstwo
 else
 letreserved@ctokszero
 fi
 thereserved@c


Is there any significant difference? (Aside from toksdef.) Which one is preferable?



(I can think of one difference. If either UNDEF or DEF contains #, then the macro register version would fail.)






tex-core







share|improve this question























  • In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
    – Manuel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
    – Joseph Wright♦
    1 hour ago












up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











Consider the following simple code:



def@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 defreserved@a#2%
 defreserved@b#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@creserved@b
 else
 letreserved@creserved@a
 fi
 reserved@c


The same result can be achieved with:



toksdeftokszero0
toksdeftokstwo2
def@@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 tokszero#2%
 tokstwo#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@ctokstwo
 else
 letreserved@ctokszero
 fi
 thereserved@c


Is there any significant difference? (Aside from toksdef.) Which one is preferable?



(I can think of one difference. If either UNDEF or DEF contains #, then the macro register version would fail.)






tex-core







share|improve this question















Consider the following simple code:



def@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 defreserved@a#2%
 defreserved@b#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@creserved@b
 else
 letreserved@creserved@a
 fi
 reserved@c


The same result can be achieved with:



toksdeftokszero0
toksdeftokstwo2
def@@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 tokszero#2%
 tokstwo#3%
 ifdefined#1
 letreserved@ctokstwo
 else
 letreserved@ctokszero
 fi
 thereserved@c


Is there any significant difference? (Aside from toksdef.) Which one is preferable?



(I can think of one difference. If either UNDEF or DEF contains #, then the macro register version would fail.)






tex-core




tex-core






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Joseph Wright♦

198k21545866




198k21545866










asked 3 hours ago









user5938

1636




1636











  • In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
    – Manuel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
    – Joseph Wright♦
    1 hour ago
















  • In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
    – Manuel
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
    – Joseph Wright♦
    1 hour ago















In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
– Manuel
1 hour ago




In eTeX you can imitate toks registers with protectededefreservedunexpanded#1 if I remember correctly. toks is ”faster”, but probably the difference in your use doesn't really matter. In LaTeX3 the macro version is used for almost everything the user does.
– Manuel
1 hour ago




1




1




You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
– Joseph Wright♦
1 hour ago




You've marked this as tex-core but the use of reserved@a suggests LaTeX ...
– Joseph Wright♦
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Not a very complete benchmark, but it should give the idea. Consider the following testundef.tex file



catcode`@=11

defa@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 defreserved@a#2%
 defreserved@b#3%
 ifdefined#1%
 letreserved@creserved@b
 else
 letreserved@creserved@a
 fi
 reserved@c

toksdeftokszero0
toksdeftokstwo2
defb@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
 tokszero#2%
 tokstwo#3%
 ifdefined#1%
 letreserved@ctokstwo
 else
 letreserved@ctokszero
 fi
 thereserved@c

def@firstoftwo#1#2#1
def@secondoftwo#1#2#2
defc@ifundefined#1% csUNDEFDEF
 ifdefined#1%
 expandafter@firstoftwo
 else
 expandafter@secondoftwo
 fi


expandafterletexpandafterifundefinedcsnametest @ifundefinedendcsname

count255=0
loopifnumcount255<1000000
 ifundefinedfoorelaxrelax
 ifundefinedrelaxrelaxrelax
 advancecount255 1
repeat

bye


I give three possible definitions of @ifundefined and then test them by a command line switch. Here's the session transcript



> time pdftex "deftestainput testundef"
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
 restricted write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./testundef.tex )
No pages of output.
Transcript written on testundef.log.

real 0m1.871s
user 0m1.844s
sys 0m0.018s

> time pdftex "deftestbinput testundef"
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
 restricted write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./testundef.tex )
No pages of output.
Transcript written on testundef.log.

real 0m2.308s
user 0m2.277s
sys 0m0.021s

> time pdftex "deftestcinput testundef"
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
 restricted write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./testundef.tex )
No pages of output.
Transcript written on testundef.log.

real 0m1.518s
user 0m1.490s
sys 0m0.017s


It seems that the toks method is the slowest; the final method, with pure expansion, is faster because there is no storing away and retrieving to do.






share|improve this answer




















    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455208%2ftoken-register-vs-macro-register%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest

















    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Not a very complete benchmark, but it should give the idea. Consider the following testundef.tex file



    catcode`@=11

    defa@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
     defreserved@a#2%
     defreserved@b#3%
     ifdefined#1%
     letreserved@creserved@b
     else
     letreserved@creserved@a
     fi
     reserved@c

    toksdeftokszero0
    toksdeftokstwo2
    defb@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
     tokszero#2%
     tokstwo#3%
     ifdefined#1%
     letreserved@ctokstwo
     else
     letreserved@ctokszero
     fi
     thereserved@c

    def@firstoftwo#1#2#1
    def@secondoftwo#1#2#2
    defc@ifundefined#1% csUNDEFDEF
     ifdefined#1%
     expandafter@firstoftwo
     else
     expandafter@secondoftwo
     fi


    expandafterletexpandafterifundefinedcsnametest @ifundefinedendcsname

    count255=0
    loopifnumcount255<1000000
     ifundefinedfoorelaxrelax
     ifundefinedrelaxrelaxrelax
     advancecount255 1
    repeat

    bye


    I give three possible definitions of @ifundefined and then test them by a command line switch. Here's the session transcript



    > time pdftex "deftestainput testundef"
    This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
     restricted write18 enabled.
    entering extended mode
    (./testundef.tex )
    No pages of output.
    Transcript written on testundef.log.

    real 0m1.871s
    user 0m1.844s
    sys 0m0.018s

    > time pdftex "deftestbinput testundef"
    This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
     restricted write18 enabled.
    entering extended mode
    (./testundef.tex )
    No pages of output.
    Transcript written on testundef.log.

    real 0m2.308s
    user 0m2.277s
    sys 0m0.021s

    > time pdftex "deftestcinput testundef"
    This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
     restricted write18 enabled.
    entering extended mode
    (./testundef.tex )
    No pages of output.
    Transcript written on testundef.log.

    real 0m1.518s
    user 0m1.490s
    sys 0m0.017s


    It seems that the toks method is the slowest; the final method, with pure expansion, is faster because there is no storing away and retrieving to do.






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      Not a very complete benchmark, but it should give the idea. Consider the following testundef.tex file



      catcode`@=11

      defa@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
       defreserved@a#2%
       defreserved@b#3%
       ifdefined#1%
       letreserved@creserved@b
       else
       letreserved@creserved@a
       fi
       reserved@c

      toksdeftokszero0
      toksdeftokstwo2
      defb@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
       tokszero#2%
       tokstwo#3%
       ifdefined#1%
       letreserved@ctokstwo
       else
       letreserved@ctokszero
       fi
       thereserved@c

      def@firstoftwo#1#2#1
      def@secondoftwo#1#2#2
      defc@ifundefined#1% csUNDEFDEF
       ifdefined#1%
       expandafter@firstoftwo
       else
       expandafter@secondoftwo
       fi


      expandafterletexpandafterifundefinedcsnametest @ifundefinedendcsname

      count255=0
      loopifnumcount255<1000000
       ifundefinedfoorelaxrelax
       ifundefinedrelaxrelaxrelax
       advancecount255 1
      repeat

      bye


      I give three possible definitions of @ifundefined and then test them by a command line switch. Here's the session transcript



      > time pdftex "deftestainput testundef"
      This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
       restricted write18 enabled.
      entering extended mode
      (./testundef.tex )
      No pages of output.
      Transcript written on testundef.log.

      real 0m1.871s
      user 0m1.844s
      sys 0m0.018s

      > time pdftex "deftestbinput testundef"
      This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
       restricted write18 enabled.
      entering extended mode
      (./testundef.tex )
      No pages of output.
      Transcript written on testundef.log.

      real 0m2.308s
      user 0m2.277s
      sys 0m0.021s

      > time pdftex "deftestcinput testundef"
      This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
       restricted write18 enabled.
      entering extended mode
      (./testundef.tex )
      No pages of output.
      Transcript written on testundef.log.

      real 0m1.518s
      user 0m1.490s
      sys 0m0.017s


      It seems that the toks method is the slowest; the final method, with pure expansion, is faster because there is no storing away and retrieving to do.






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        Not a very complete benchmark, but it should give the idea. Consider the following testundef.tex file



        catcode`@=11

        defa@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
         defreserved@a#2%
         defreserved@b#3%
         ifdefined#1%
         letreserved@creserved@b
         else
         letreserved@creserved@a
         fi
         reserved@c

        toksdeftokszero0
        toksdeftokstwo2
        defb@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
         tokszero#2%
         tokstwo#3%
         ifdefined#1%
         letreserved@ctokstwo
         else
         letreserved@ctokszero
         fi
         thereserved@c

        def@firstoftwo#1#2#1
        def@secondoftwo#1#2#2
        defc@ifundefined#1% csUNDEFDEF
         ifdefined#1%
         expandafter@firstoftwo
         else
         expandafter@secondoftwo
         fi


        expandafterletexpandafterifundefinedcsnametest @ifundefinedendcsname

        count255=0
        loopifnumcount255<1000000
         ifundefinedfoorelaxrelax
         ifundefinedrelaxrelaxrelax
         advancecount255 1
        repeat

        bye


        I give three possible definitions of @ifundefined and then test them by a command line switch. Here's the session transcript



        > time pdftex "deftestainput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m1.871s
        user 0m1.844s
        sys 0m0.018s

        > time pdftex "deftestbinput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m2.308s
        user 0m2.277s
        sys 0m0.021s

        > time pdftex "deftestcinput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m1.518s
        user 0m1.490s
        sys 0m0.017s


        It seems that the toks method is the slowest; the final method, with pure expansion, is faster because there is no storing away and retrieving to do.






        share|improve this answer












        Not a very complete benchmark, but it should give the idea. Consider the following testundef.tex file



        catcode`@=11

        defa@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
         defreserved@a#2%
         defreserved@b#3%
         ifdefined#1%
         letreserved@creserved@b
         else
         letreserved@creserved@a
         fi
         reserved@c

        toksdeftokszero0
        toksdeftokstwo2
        defb@ifundefined#1#2#3% csUNDEFDEF
         tokszero#2%
         tokstwo#3%
         ifdefined#1%
         letreserved@ctokstwo
         else
         letreserved@ctokszero
         fi
         thereserved@c

        def@firstoftwo#1#2#1
        def@secondoftwo#1#2#2
        defc@ifundefined#1% csUNDEFDEF
         ifdefined#1%
         expandafter@firstoftwo
         else
         expandafter@secondoftwo
         fi


        expandafterletexpandafterifundefinedcsnametest @ifundefinedendcsname

        count255=0
        loopifnumcount255<1000000
         ifundefinedfoorelaxrelax
         ifundefinedrelaxrelaxrelax
         advancecount255 1
        repeat

        bye


        I give three possible definitions of @ifundefined and then test them by a command line switch. Here's the session transcript



        > time pdftex "deftestainput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m1.871s
        user 0m1.844s
        sys 0m0.018s

        > time pdftex "deftestbinput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m2.308s
        user 0m2.277s
        sys 0m0.021s

        > time pdftex "deftestcinput testundef"
        This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.19 (TeX Live 2018) (preloaded format=pdftex)
         restricted write18 enabled.
        entering extended mode
        (./testundef.tex )
        No pages of output.
        Transcript written on testundef.log.

        real 0m1.518s
        user 0m1.490s
        sys 0m0.017s


        It seems that the toks method is the slowest; the final method, with pure expansion, is faster because there is no storing away and retrieving to do.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 30 mins ago









        egreg

        689k8518333082




        689k8518333082



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455208%2ftoken-register-vs-macro-register%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest
































































            Comments

            Post a Comment

            Popular posts from this blog

            List of Gilmore Girls characters

            Image
            The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
            Read more

            What does second last employer means? [closed]

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
            Read more

            One-line joke

            A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
            Read more