Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:47:05 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0KJl36C001026 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:47:04 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0KJJlZr013346; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:19:48 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0BC.B56D0280" 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 h0K3Js8x000694; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:12:30 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7686 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:12:29 +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 h0KJCT5f010124 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:12:29 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0KJJXZr013322 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:19:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from [212.227.126.155] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18ahSH-0000xQ-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:19:33 +0100 Received: from [80.129.5.232] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18ahSH-0004EO-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:19:33 +0100 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id h0KJGdx25313; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:16:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: 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-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2003 19:47:05.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5EB0C20:01C2C0BC] x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id h0KJCT5f010125 X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,X_AUTH_WARNING Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LICR objects in math Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:16:39 +0100 Message-ID: A<15916.19223.521144.622865@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LICR objects in math Thread-Index: AcLAvLYRF79qdKfOSMq6jxFN7gQTuQ== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4454 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0BC.B56D0280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lars Hellstr=F6m writes: > 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? probably not (well, probably yes :-) i have yet to see a single change = that doesn't break something, but for most purposes that should be a clear = no). However, that would be fairly in efficient way to use the eTeX feature, = ie if eTeX would be unconditionally used one could run far more efficient code = since a lot of that \ifx\protect\typeset@protect could go away (and an LICR = command on top-level expansion could be reduced to just two tokens) however, as a compatible start that actually works with TeX one could = simply go \ifx \protected\@undefined \def\protected{} \else = \WARNING-This-may-loose-characters-if-you-are-not-careful-better-use-etex= \fi \protected\def\@current@cmd@math.... and that should do the trick frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0BC.B56D0280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LICR objects in math

Lars Hellstr=F6m writes:

 > 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?

probably not (well, probably yes :-) i have yet to see = a single change that
doesn't break something, but for most purposes that = should be a clear no).

However, that would be fairly in efficient way to use = the eTeX feature, ie if
eTeX would be unconditionally used one could run far = more efficient code since
a lot of that \ifx\protect\typeset@protect could go = away (and an LICR command
on top-level expansion could be reduced to just two = tokens)

however, as a compatible start that actually works = with TeX one could simply
go

 \ifx \protected\@undefined = \def\protected{}
 \else
   = \WARNING-This-may-loose-characters-if-you-are-not-careful-better-use-etex=
 \fi
 \protected\def\@current@cmd@math....

and that should do the trick

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C0BC.B56D0280--