Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:11:28 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0KJBP6C000954 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:11:26 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0KIo5AL005630; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:50:05 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0B7.BBACB000" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0K3Js8d000694; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:42:57 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7671 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:42:56 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0KIgu5f010034 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:42:56 +0100 Received: from abel.math.umu.se (abel.math.umu.se [130.239.20.139]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0KInxZr007591 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:49:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.239.20.144] (mac144.math.umu.se [130.239.20.144]) by abel.math.umu.se (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA07345 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:45:50 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <15916.14608.340151.43815@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> References: <15915.60496.798501.907773@lin2.idris.fr> <15915.64379.146524.772099@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15916.8635.946195.989212@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2003 19:11:28.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC03F7C0:01C2C0B7] X-Sender: lars@abel.math.umu.se x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id h0KIgu5f010035 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.5 () IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LICR objects in math Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:50:43 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LICR objects in math Thread-Index: AcLAt7wteKHKFCW5TuSwRA3khL0KgA== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Hellstr=F6m?= To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4453 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0B7.BBACB000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 18.59 +0100 2003-01-20, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >David Kastrup writes: > > How about squashing this particular problem with > > \protected\def{\"a}{\ifmmode ...}? > >yes, that is indeed possible a way to go (with eTeX version 2 that is) > >i think i did say last night that etex doesn't havesomething to stop = scanning >for \omit andthe like, but my memory played tricks on me. > >it did not have such a thing in version 1 but with version 2 \protected = was >extended to do exactly that stop the scan of an \omit > >so that would be one point in favour of an eTeX based solution, as = suggested >in the policy discussion Would it break anything if the LaTeX core would say \ifx \protected\@undefined \def\protected{} \fi and \protected was used before each definition of a LICR command? Lars Hellstr=F6m ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0B7.BBACB000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LICR objects in math

At 18.59 +0100 2003-01-20, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:
>David Kastrup writes:
> > How about squashing this particular problem = with
> > \protected\def{\"a}{\ifmmode = ...}?
>
>yes, that is indeed possible a way to go (with = eTeX version 2 that is)
>
>i think i did say last night that etex doesn't = havesomething to stop scanning
>for \omit andthe like, but my memory played = tricks on me.
>
>it did not have such a thing in version 1 but = with version 2 \protected was
>extended to do exactly that stop the scan of an = \omit
>
>so that would be one point in favour of an eTeX = based solution, as suggested
>in the policy discussion

Would it break anything if the LaTeX core would = say

  \ifx \protected\@undefined \def\protected{} = \fi

and \protected was used before each definition of a = LICR command?

Lars Hellstr=F6m

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0B7.BBACB000--