LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: \in@ wrong?
From: Uwe Lück <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:00:32 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (37 lines)
Dear LaTeX,

I wonder whether this is a bug that should go to the LaTeX Bug Database, 
since it only
-- is about an internal
-- contradicts what one might expect
-- while it is not clear to me whether this can affect LaTeX's function on 
the user-level

What do you expect from

     \in@{ionization}{ionizat}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi}
     \in@{bonbon}{bon}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi}
     \in@{client-to-client}{client-to-}\typeout{\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi}

The problem is generally characterized on pp. 9f. of

Perhaps this is known (concerning \in@) and has been taken into account 
when it was used.

I also don't know how to produce a LaTeX mistake from this (using user or 
package writer commands only). A hint on this may be that the problem 
already occurs with patterns that end on the same character as they begin 
with, e.g., \in@{msam}{msa} (this idea because \in@ seems to be mainly used 
in handling fonts, while there seems to be no danger with searching 
comma-separated lists).

LaTeX bug or not?

Happy TeXing,