## 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 >>]

 Subject: Re: Why don't we do just the following: From: Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> Reply To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:03:38 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
 > Ok, your proposal has the disadvantage that the error occurs only when
> referring to the label (and at the point of reference instead of
> definition).

so does yours i think, or how was your proposal meant?

> And it has the advantage that if you are only out for a
> \pageref in the first place, this will still be legal.

well, compare it to the outcome of your proposal which looks like this:

! Undefined control sequence.
\@currentlabel ...ing \label inside of a figure.

l.22 \label{foo}

i guess it is fairly difficult to find a short enough csname that in the above
output will look reasonable and b) it will still probably open more questions