User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20090424092120.GA7843@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>           
            <5.1.0.14.0.20090421122917.02f41830@pop3.web.de>           
            <455691F1-21A4-4C65-A025-7855791829F7@gmail.com>           
            <20090424092120.GA7843@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>           
            <5.1.0.14.0.20090425151542.032a0ce0@pop3.web.de>
            <20090425183703.GA2822@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
OpenPGP: url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x50A89B42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <49F5959F.5070104@elzevir.fr>
Date:         Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:23:11 +0200
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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_P=E9gouri=E9-Gonnard?= <mpg@ELZEVIR.FR>
Subject: Re: \in@ wrong?
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20090425183703.GA2822@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Heiko Oberdiek a écrit :
>> (This uses \@nil.) Putting the second split into a macro to test it against 
>> \@empty is safe, but one might dislike it as "slow".
> 
> I prefer "safe".
> 
I agree.

> An expandable test could be used, e.g.:
>   \ifx\\##2\\% or something else as \\

Is it "allowed" to use e-TeX commands inside the kernel? If so,

\expandafter\ifx\expandafter\\\detokenize{##2}\\% or something else as \\

is the safest test, as I'm sure you know.

Anyway, depending on the intended use of \in@, certain resctrictions (such as
"no unbalanced \if" or "no # token" or "no \@nil token" are probably acceptable,
as long as they are properly documented.

Manuel.