[luatex] Luatex primitive names

Taco Hoekwater taco at elvenkind.com
Tue Mar 10 15:22:31 CET 2009

Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>> "Now I'd rather test for \directlua. *But* if some day Jonathan
>> include Lua as a scripting language in XeTeX, things will be more
>> complicated."
>   The primitive doesn't need to be called \directlua :-)  It will have a
> very different behaviour anyway: XeTeX will not use callbacks to hook
> Lua code into the TeX engine, it will simply enable to write Lua
> programs inside TeX (Jonathan said so).
>   But I guess that brings us back to the prefix issue, and maybe we can
> rename \directlua to \luadirect (which will be coherent with the change
> in the syntax anyway).  Taco?

At some point in this discussion I will start screaming, I am sure ;)

I believe that in the combination of \luatexversion + \directlua
would be a better choice than yet another primitive name, but no,
the --ini primitive does not have to be called \directla per se.
It could be called \luatexdirectlua or so.

In any case, \directlua will remain present in the 'luatex' block of
primitives because of all the exposure it has gotten already; but
also because it nicely complements \latelua (which \luadirect doesnt).

Best wishes,

More information about the luatex mailing list