References: <85wsoeto1k.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
            <18385.42387.268037.81145@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID:  <85skz2rzpg.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
Date:         Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:28:27 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: David Kastrup <dak@GNU.ORG>
Subject: Re: A really, really bad bug.
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <18385.42387.268037.81145@morse.mittelbach-online.de> (Frank
              Mittelbach's message of "Fri, 7 Mar 2008 21:29:07 +0100")
Precedence: list
Status: R

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > What is your take?  I find it clearly unsatisfactory to have LaTeX
>  > eat up save stack for newly defined labels like that at the end of
>  > the document.
>
> well, you seem to be the first person getting into trouble with this,

I doubt it.  From ltxref.dtx:

%    The internal form of |\newlabel| and |\bibcite|. Note that this
%    macro does it's work inside a group. That way the local
%    assignments it needs to do don't clutter the save stack. This
%    prevents large documents with many labels to run out of save
%    stack.
% \changes{v1.1h}{1995/10/24}{Switch for multiplelabels replaced by
%    inline code}
% \changes{v1.1k}{2001/02/16}{Added an extra grouplevel (PR3250), jlb}
%    \begin{macrocode}
\def\@newl@bel#1#2#3{{%
  \@ifundefined{#1@#2}%
    \relax
    {\gdef \@multiplelabels {%
       \@latex@warning@no@line{There were multiply-defined labels}}%
     \@latex@warning@no@line{Label `#2' multiply defined}}%
  \global\@namedef{#1@#2}{#3}}}
%    \end{macrocode}

So obviously somebody ran into this problem before.  But only half of it
got fixed.

> but that doesn't mean one shouldn't fix it.

> I don't really mind either of the three solutions (provided none of the kills
> the regression tests for 2e) but personally I would simply drop the group
> unless somebody can give me a good reason why it could be needed in a certain
> situation.

For restoring \@newl@bel's definition afterwards.  Don't ask me why it
could be needed.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum