In order to improve the \sameword feature of reledmac, I would like to find a way to automatically apply a command to every word. For example, in plain TeX,

\def\foo#1{#1 (#1)}
foo bar foo bar foo bar foo, foo? foo. foo;

should be automatically transformed to

\def\foo#1{#1 (#1)}
\foo{foo} \foo{bar} \foo{foo} \foo{bar} \foo{foo} \foo{bar} \foo{foo}, \foo{foo}? \foo{foo}. \foo{foo};

My constraints are:

  • excluding the punctuation mark
  • excluding some commands (for example foo\footnote{bar} should become \foo{foo}\footnote{bar} and not \foo{foo\footnote{bar}})
  • if possible, working with pdfTeX, XeTeX and LuaTeX, but a LuaTeX-only solution would be nice.
  • using any already existing LaTeX package (but a pure plainTeX is also accepted)
  • Your second constraint is the difficult one... how to exclude some/all macros. – Steven B. Segletes Dec 1 '15 at 12:24
  • yes, I know. Notes that the list of excluded macro could be defined manually. – Maïeul Dec 1 '15 at 12:27
  • Related: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/253203/…. My answer there also shows how to do "something" to each word. However, excluding macros would be an issue. – Steven B. Segletes Dec 1 '15 at 12:28
  • Your example caused my answer to fail!! finally realised it was the example that is wrong, plain tex \footnote takes (effectively) two arguments not one:-) see the usage in my update answer. – David Carlisle Dec 1 '15 at 12:59
  • 1
    Just wondering whether preprocessing the source could be an alternative …? The script would only have to check for duplicate words that are max. 80 or so characters apart, so I'd imagine it wouldn't take too long to run. – Florian Dec 1 '15 at 13:26

It would be so easy to break this, but..

enter image description here

\def\foo#1{#1 (#1)}
\def\xfoo#1 {%
\ifx\footnote#4\foo{#1}\footnote{#2}{#3} \else\afoo#1?\relax\fi}
\def\afoo#1?#2\relax{\ifx?#2\foo{#1}? \else\bfoo#1,\relax\fi}
\def\bfoo#1,#2\relax{\ifx,#2\foo{#1}, \else\cfoo#1;\relax\fi}
\def\cfoo#1;#2\relax{\ifx;#2\foo{#1}; \else\dfoo#1.\relax\fi}
\def\dfoo#1.#2\relax{\ifx.#2\foo{#1}. \else\foo{#1} \relax\fi}


% assumes a space before the par
\def\yfoo#1\par{\xfoo#1!@ \par}


foo bar foo bar foo\footnote{$^1$}{bar} bar foo, foo? foo. foo;


IMHO you need something like this:

\def\everyword#1#2{\let\domacro=#1\everywordA#2 {} }
\def\everywordA#1 {\ifx^#1^\else
   \def\tmp{}\everywordB #1\end
   \expandafter\everywordA \fi
\def\everywordC{\ifcat\noexpand\next A\expandafter\everywordD
                \else \expandafter\everywordE \fi}

\def\foo#1{#1 (#1)}
\everyword\foo{foo bar foo bar foo bar foo, foo? foo. foo;}

The main idea of this macro is: we process each word separated by space first and each such word is divided to two parts: first the letter tokens (catcode 11) and second all tokens of another type.


An implementation with xparse and l3regex; first the appearances of \footnote are kept out of the way, then in each piece runs of characters that are not spaces or punctuation are given as argument to a macro whose meaning can be set with \setxsamewordformat:


  \maieul_xsameword:n { #1 }

\tl_new:N \l__maieul_xsameword_list_tl

\cs_new_protected:Nn \maieul_xsameword:n
  \tl_set:Nn \l__maieul_xsameword_list_tl
    \__maieul_xsameword_start:n { #1 }
   { (\c{footnote}\cB..*?\cE.) }
   { \cE\} \1 \c{__maieul_xsameword_start:n} \cB\{ }
  \tl_use:N \l__maieul_xsameword_list_tl
\cs_new_protected:Nn \__maieul_xsameword_start:n
  \tl_set:Nn \l__maieul_xsameword_list_tl { #1 }
   { ([^\s,.!?]+) }
   { \c{maieul_xsameword_format:n} \cB\{ \1 \cE\} }
  \tl_use:N \l__maieul_xsameword_list_tl

  \cs_set_protected:Nn \maieul_xsameword_format:n { #1 }

\setxsamewordformat{#1 (#1)}



\xsameword{foo \textit{bar} baz? foo\footnote{footnote footnote} bar}


\xsameword{foo \textit{bar} baz? foo\footnote{footnote footnote} bar}


enter image description here

Note that also non ASCII characters are managed.

  • I think your answer, as based on regexp, is the better one. I will look on it more carefuly later. – Maïeul Dec 1 '15 at 15:43
  • 2
    @Maïeul There are limitations, of course: something like \textit{foo\footnote{bar}} is not going to work. Also efficiency is out of the question, I'm afraid. More testing with real use cases would be needed to fine tune it. The list of “exceptions” can be extended. – egreg Dec 1 '15 at 15:49
  • yes of course. For now, I have to understand your code well. – Maïeul Dec 1 '15 at 16:04
  • however, maybe the solution proposed by @florian will be the best one: using external script. – Maïeul Dec 1 '15 at 16:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.