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:
From:
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 8 Mar 2008 14:34:21 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Heiko,

 > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:07PM +0100, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
 > 
 > > David Kastrup writes:
 > > 
 > >  > Another possibilities are to remove the grouping from the end of
 > >  > document action testing the labels. 
 > > 
 > > from briefly staring at the code I see no reason why this group is needed at
 > > all. Does anybody see one why it could make a difference?
 > 
 > You mean the following group?
 > 
 >   \def\enddocument{%
 >     ...
 >     \begingroup
 >       ...
 >       \input\jobname.aux
 >       ...
 >     \endgroup
 >     ...
 >   }
 > 
 > Then it isn't known what .aux files may contain (apart from \newlabel).
 > Many packages write definitions and other stuff in the .aux files.

well it is known to me, but in which case would that make a difference at this
point? The only thing that happens after the endgroup is

  \deadcycles\z@\@@end

and that shouldn't even output another page unless the aux files are missued
to the point that they contribute again to the page galley

so what am I missing that you think can make a problem even if such
definitions or stuff are not executed in a group?
 
frank

ATOM RSS1 RSS2