Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > > a) this doesn't help for LICR objects like \" as they potentially execute > > > \accent and that bombs in math > > > > Nope. We would have the case where \"a has a proper letter > > equivalent. In that case we would write the following (excuse the > > illegal notation > > > > \def{\"a}{\ifmmode \relax \ifmmode \ddot a\else ä\fi\else ä\fi} > > nope nope (imho:-) > > that's for the case where \"a is precisely *not* executing an \accent but is > actually a glyph in the current font But that is the only case you have to handle! \accent combinations don't have the right kerning anyway, so just stick \relax before the \accent. The (killer) problem I see has already been alluded to: The inputenc characters are already active, so you have to have a single definition that works for both the initial expansion of the input text and as the math-active character, without recursion. David's usage of "ä" is probably part of the "illegal notation", but if I may either clarify or fix: Definition to convert from LICR to glyph: \def{\"a}{\ifmmode \relax % make sure we are in math mode to stay \ifmmode \ddot a% \else \string ä\fi \else \string ä\fi} Definition to convert from LICR to \accent: \def{\"a}{\relax % Take That! \ifmmode \ddot a\else \"{a}\fi} Donald Arseneau [log in to unmask]