LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional 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
Heiko Oberdiek <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:21:20 +0200
text/plain (76 lines)
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 03:03:08PM +0930, Will Robertson wrote:

> On 21/04/2009, at 8:30 PM, Uwe Lück wrote:
> >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
> This certainly seems like a bug to me, although I had to modify your  
> examples to see the error:
> 	\documentclass{article}
> 	\begin{document}
> 	\makeatletter
> 	\in@{bonbon}{bon}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi  % gives YES
> 	\in@{bonbon}{bonb}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi % gives NO
> 	\in@{client-to-client}{client-to}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi  % gives NO
> 	\in@{client-to-client}{client-to-}\ifin@ YES\else NO\fi % gives YES
> 	\makeatother
> 	\end{document}
> The tendency seems to be not to change the internals of LaTeX2e, but  
> I'd be happy to replace the current implementation of \in@ with a more  
> correct version. What do others think?

I don't see any sense in preserving such a silly bug.

> If others are amenable to the  
> change, would you be willing to write the new version?

\catcode`\@=11 %
\def\@empty{}% (for testing with plain-TeX)

%%% begin of fixed definition %%%
%%% end of fixed definition %%%


    \ifin@ yes\else no\fi
    [\string\in@{#1}{#2} = \@result\space] => %
    \ifx\@result\@expected OK.\else FAILED!\fi


\csname @@end\endcsname\end

Yours sincerely
  Heiko <[log in to unmask]>