## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

#### View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

Re: \in@ wrong?

From:

Date:

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:23:11 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (22 lines)
 Heiko Oberdiek a écrit : >> (This uses \@[log in to unmask]) Putting the second split into a macro to test it against >> \@empty is safe, but one might dislike it as "slow". > > I prefer "safe". > I agree. > An expandable test could be used, e.g.: > \ifx\\##2\\% or something else as \\ Is it "allowed" to use e-TeX commands inside the kernel? If so, \expandafter\ifx\expandafter\\\detokenize{##2}\\% or something else as \\ is the safest test, as I'm sure you know. Anyway, depending on the intended use of \in@, certain resctrictions (such as "no unbalanced \if" or "no # token" or "no \@nil token" are probably acceptable, as long as they are properly documented. Manuel.