The comment-pln code on CTAN (link) defines the plain TeX macros \begincomment and \endcomment, that ignore everything typed in between. The entire code base is included below:

%       Comment.tex
% Macro to allow block comments in TeX
% Usage: Text between \begincomment and \endcomment is ignored; i.e.
% text
% \begincomment
%    this text is ignored
% \endcomment
% more text
% Notes: Do NOT nest.
%        The \endcomment MUST appear at the end of a line.
%        TeX processes each line of ignored text, so the macro
%           is not particularly fast.  Use sparingly.  The main use
%           is to cause TeX to pass over small blocks of text.
% J.C. Alexander,  May, 1986
 \catcode`\\=12 \catcode`\{=12 \catcode`\}=12 \catcode`\#=12
\def\begincomment{\newcodes@\endlinechar=10 \comment@}

What is this black magic?

The first few lines I get: It gives a way to redefine the catcodes for \, {, }, #, and % to be "other" and reverting the change. Presumably this will cause them not do their usual voodoo when the comment is treated as comment.

(However: those are the 0, 1, 2, 6, and 14 characters; why is it $, _, and ^ can be omitted? )

I also think I sort of get the definition of \begincomment: It changes the catcodes, sets the endline character, and "calls the macro" \comment@ (which I assume due to the change of endline character actually eats up the commented portion as part of its processing).

My main questions are therefore: how exactly does this \comment@ work and how does it relate to the code in the group immediately after that? I have zero idea what those three \gdefs are doing.


Before trying to understand that definition, let us give it a proper indentation and line numbers so it (arguably) is more readable:

02:  \lccode`\!=`\\
03:  \lowercase{%
04:    \gdef\comment@#1^^J{\comment@@#1!endcomment\comment@@@}%
05:    \gdef\comment@@#1!endcomment{\futurelet\next\comment@@@}%
06:    \gdef\comment@@@#1\comment@@@{%
07:      \ifx\next\comment@@@
08:        \let\next=\comment@
09:      \else
10:        \def\next{\oldcodes@\endlinechar=`\^^M\relax}%
11:      \fi
12:      \next}%
13:  }%

It starts by opening a group (line 1) to make the following \lccode setting local. Then it changes the \lccode of ! to that of \, and then issues \lowercase on the remaining block of code. This is the so-called \lowercase trick for injecting a character with an unusual catcode in a definition. The contraption:


could be replaced by


then the \gdef could be replaced by \def. But back at the definition. After \lowercase has done its thing, all tokens who have a non-zero \lccode were replaced by their lowercase counterparts, and this includes the replacement of the character ! by the character \ (that is, a catcode 12 backslash). I'll show them as \\ in the block of code above to differentiate form the catcode 0 backslashes, but they are actually single \12 tokens:

04:    \gdef\comment@#1^^J{\comment@@#1\\endcomment\comment@@@}%
05:    \gdef\comment@@#1\\endcomment{\futurelet\next\comment@@@}%
06:    \gdef\comment@@@#1\comment@@@{%
07:      \ifx\next\comment@@@
08:        \let\next=\comment@
09:      \else
10:        \def\next{\oldcodes@\endlinechar=`\^^M\relax}%
11:      \fi
12:      \next}%

Now here's what each of these three commands do: \comment@ grabs everything until the next ^^J (which, since the \endlinechar was set to 10, is the line end) and does \comment@@#1\\endcomment\comment@@@ (remember that \\ is a single backslash). There are two possibilities here: the first is if #1 is a "normal" line of code to be commented, and the second is if #1 is the string \\endcomment.

Now let's see each possibility separately: if the line doesn't contain \\endcomment, then \comment@@ will grab everything up to the \\endcomment left by \comment@, discard it, and do \futurelet\next\comment@@@. Since everything to the \\endcomment was discarded, the next token is another \comment@@@. Now the \futurelet does its thing and (the first) \comment@@@ is expanded, and checks if the \next token is also \comment@@@. If so, it does \let\next=\comment@ and another line is processed.

When a line that contains \\endcomment is found, \comment@@ will use that as delimiter, and the \futurelet\next\comment@@@ thing will assign something else to \next, other than \comment@@@. In this case, the \ifx test in \comment@@@ will return false and \next will be redefined to return the catcodes to normal with \oldcodes@, and the processing is done.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Okay, so just to make sure I understand: because of the change of catcodes to be enforced by \begincomment, it needs a way to detect \endcommend with ` having catcode 12; that's why the \lowercase` trick is needed, it allows us to still use ` with catcode 0 but introduce a new character (using lowercasing on !` that has the same character code but catcode 12). So that part is clear. The case where the line doesn't contain \\endcomment is also clear. – Willie Wong Nov 22 '19 at 20:47
  • For the final paragraph, the reason is that because \comment@ stashes another \\endcomment, so \comment@@ is essentially asked to process \\endcomment\\endcomment, the first copy is treated as the delimiter, so then \futurelet\next\comment@@@ will now be followed by \\endcomment\comment@@@ and so \next is now something that is not \comment@@@ and that breaks the loop. Wow. – Willie Wong Nov 22 '19 at 20:51
  • @WillieWong Yes, that's exactly it! This is the type of line-by-line verbatim processor. It's similar to LaTeX's filecontents environment, and to the one from fancyvrb, if I'm not mistaken. There's also the type that grabs the entire environment in one go, like the macrocode environment from the doc package, and token-by-token type, listings (I'm sure there are others, but these are the most common ones). – Phelype Oleinik Nov 22 '19 at 20:58

The definition of \newcodes@ saves the current category codes of \ { } # % into macros and changes them to 12.

Making the backslash into an “other character” is necessary not in order to block interpretation of macros, which would be discarded before expansion is attempted, but in order to avoid TeX seeing conditionals and keep their nesting in skipped branches. Also appearances of \comment@@@ in the commented block would ruin everything.

Braces are made catcode 12 so TeX will not try and keep their nesting into account. Without this, a { in a line and } in another line might be disastrous. The percent is made other so that it doesn't mask the end-of-line.

I see no apparent reason for changing the catcode of #; however this avoids its “doubling” when absorbed in the argument of a macro.

The other special characters are not a problem, because all found tokens will be discarded. They'd need treatment if we wanted to do verbatim printing.

The macro \oldcodes@ restores the category codes that have changed.

Now the most important macros.

First \begincomment executes \newcodes@ and sets the end-of-line mechanism to deliver character number 10, in double-hat notation ^^J. Then \comment@ is executed.

What's its job? It looks forward for ^^J (that is up to the end of the line), making the argument to be whatever is found in between; then it delivers \comment@@ followed by the argument followed by the characters \endcomment, the first category code 12, the other 11, ending with \comment@@@.

The \lowercase is used so every ! in its argument is changed into a backslash before doing anything else; since no uppercase character appears, that's the only change. Remember that \lowercase only affects characters and leaves control sequences alone.

Thus the macro \comment@@ is defined to have an argument delimited by \endcomment (not a macro). Its main purpose is to discard the argument, but it also does \futurelet\next\comment@@@.

Let's see an example that will help discussing the other macros:


After doing the assignments of category codes and to \endlinechar, \comment@ is found. The end-of-line hasn't yet be tokenized, but it will be now, when \comment@ looks for its argument. In this case it's empty, so


is placed in the input stream (I denote by !endcomment the eleven characters described above). The (empty) argument is discarded and the input stream will have


Then \next is set equal to \comment@@@ and \comment@@@ is expanded. Its definition is to collect as an argument whatever comes along up to the first \comment@@@ token. In this case, nothing. It then examines the meaning of \next.

In this case \next is the same as \comment@@@, so \next is set equal to \comment@ and the false branch is skipped over. Then \next, that is \comment@ is executed, which will see


and do essentially the same (try following it). After this,


remains on the input stream. This is transformed into


and the argument to \comment@@ is empty (it wouldn't be if some character preceded \endcomment on the same line. The first !endcomment is removed as part of processing the delimited argument and


remains. Now \next is set to ! (actually a catcode 12 backslash, of course) and the argument to \comment@@@ is absorbed and discarded. Since \next is not \comment@@@, the endgame \oldcodes@\endlinechar`\^^M is executed.

Important points.

When a macro is defined, the tokens in its parameter text and replacement text are already in internal format and don't depend in any way on subsequent changes of category codes.

When a macro with delimited arguments is expanded, the delimiters are removed from the input stream along with the arguments and the removed tokens will be replaced by the macro's replacement text.

To the contrary, \futurelet never removes tokens.

When \lowercase changes a character, it doesn't change the category code. So with

{\lccode`!=`\\ \lowercase{!}}

one gets a category code 12 backslash. Note that the \lccode of ! will revert to its previous value (usually 0) upon the end of the group. An equivalent way to do the same is

\begingroup\lccode`!=`\\ \lowercase{\endgroup!}

because \lowercase does not interpret any token it finds; so \endgroup will be executed after ! has been changed to a backslash.

I'd probably write

\begingroup\lccode`\!=`\\ \lowercase{\endgroup
}% end of \lowercase

Less braces to keep account of.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Thanks for the explanation of the catcode stuff, I see I was mistaken in my original assumptions. – Willie Wong Nov 25 '19 at 14:14

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.