## 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:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:17:58 +0930

Content-Type:

multipart/signed

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (34 lines) , smime.p7s (34 lines)
 Thanks Heiko! On 24/04/2009, at 6:51 PM, Heiko Oberdiek wrote: > %%% begin of fixed definition %%% > \def\in@#1#2{% > \def\in@@##1#1##2\in@@{% > \def\in@@{##2}% > \ifx\in@@\@empty > \in@false > \else > \in@true > \fi > }% > \in@@#2\@nil#1\in@@ > } > %%% end of fixed definition %%% This looks good to me. It seems that the old documentation for the command was also written incorrectly: % |\@in| is a utility macro with two arguments. It determines % whether its first argument occurs in its second (after expanding % it) and sets the switch |\if@in| accordingly. Unless I'm mistaken, there was no expanding going on in the old version; I'm going to change this accordingly. Any objections to changing the definition to that proposed by Heiko above? Cheers, Will