Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> well, you seem to be the first person getting into trouble with this,
> but that doesn't mean one shouldn't fix it.

5000 labels is easy to reach if you are using the label mechanism
extensively.

> I don't really mind either of the three solutions (provided none of
> the kills the regression tests for 2e) but personally I would simply
> drop the group unless somebody can give me a good reason why it could
> be needed in a certain situation.

Other code checking the definition of the current label?  Or something?
No idea.  Maybe to keep the effect of \tmpswawhatever local?

Otherwise, here is what I would propose (since it mimics a definition
elsewhere with regard to label save stack buildup in ltxref.dtx).





The "only" problem with that is that it breaks Babel (which checks for
the old definition).  Babel can be fixed in the obvious way by checking
for the changed definition and changing its own replacement.

However, BABEL IS NOT IN THE SVN REPOSITORY AND DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY.
ARRRRGHH!!!!!

Obviously, the change needs to be made simultaneously.  PLEASE, PLEASE,
PLEASE, Johannes, can you submit Babel to the LaTeX repository or send
your repo to somebody who can?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum