LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: \in@ wrong?
From:
Morten Høgholm <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:25:29 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines) 
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The tendency seems to be not to change the internals of LaTeX2e, but I'd be
> happy to replace the current implementation of \in@ with a more correct
> version. What do others think? If others are amenable to the change, would
> you be willing to write the new version?

Unless I am completely mistaken, writing a new version is a simple
task: just make the second argument start with something that should
not appear in input, such as a the nil marker.

-- 
Morten

ATOM RSS1 RSS2