Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:52:07 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
David Kastrup writes:
> > > What is your take? I find it clearly unsatisfactory to have LaTeX
> > > eat up save stack for newly defined labels like that at the end of
> > > the document.
> >
> > well, you seem to be the first person getting into trouble with this,
>
> I doubt it. From ltxref.dtx:
on labels I meant, but I was more or less joking, yes this isn't something
that should stay, no question
> So obviously somebody ran into this problem before. But only half of it
> got fixed.
yes I think I remember that one ... huge bibliographies being processed
> > 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.
>
> For restoring \@newl@bel's definition afterwards. Don't ask me why it
> could be needed.
it could not could it? a) where? in a final OR? and b) to what purpose with
auxfiles closed.
I mean yes, that would be one of those things that would be different but I'm
not even prepared to call that a sideeffect unless somebody shows me an
existing application
frank
|
|
|