Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:12:26 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3LBCQZ3026763 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:12:26 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LB5oK7022273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:50 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3LAUhwU010182; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:51 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 265170 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:51 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3LB5p1Y007587 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:51 +0200 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de (fmmailgate02.web.de [217.72.192.227]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n3LB5bYp017107 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:41 +0200 Received: from smtp06.web.de (fmsmtp06.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.172]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AE3FD60924 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [194.97.195.29] (helo=uwe.lueck) by smtp06.web.de with esmtp (SSLv3:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (WEB.DE 4.110 #277) id 1LwDnD-0004Ze-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:36 +0200 X-Sender: uwe.lueck@pop3.web.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Sender: uwe.lueck@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19MVYLLZ9KdKEzFpS1QAsI62WsQPSyyaPTT6zbV b/no6mbRfI7c+ETX0mELeUVH1vMdyyYOtiw/tK9VOqnwmpJimt KeltseYiE= Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20090421122917.02f41830@pop3.web.de> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:00:32 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=FCck?= Subject: \in@ wrong? To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -6.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2009 11:12:27.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[0DC89800:01C9C272] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5752 Dear LaTeX, I wonder whether this is a bug that should go to the LaTeX Bug Database, since it only -- is about an internal -- contradicts what one might expect -- while it is not clear to me whether this can affect LaTeX's function on the user-level What do you expect from \in@{ionization}{ionizat}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi} or \in@{bonbon}{bon}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi} or \in@{client-to-client}{client-to-}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi} The problem is generally characterized on pp. 9f. of http://mirror.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/nicetext/fifinddo.pdf Perhaps this is known (concerning \in@) and has been taken into account when it was used. I also don't know how to produce a LaTeX mistake from this (using user or package writer commands only). A hint on this may be that the problem already occurs with patterns that end on the same character as they begin with, e.g., \in@{msam}{msa} (this idea because \in@ seems to be mainly used in handling fonts, while there seems to be no danger with searching comma-separated lists). LaTeX bug or not? Happy TeXing, Uwe.