On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> Hi Hans and Taco,
>
> Do you think it makes sense to replace {\rm mod} in the definition of
> bmod and pmod (in math-pln.tex) by \mfunction{mod}?
Another request: I am thinking of updating the nath module, and I
notice that nath.sty goes into considerable length to make math
commands "robust" (whatever that means). Basically
\def\makerobust#1{%
\expandafter\let\csname @[EMAIL PROTECTED] #1\endcsname=#1
\unexpanded\def#1{\csname @[EMAIL PROTECTED] #1\endcsname}}
% Making composed math symbols robust:
\makerobust\cong
\makerobust\notin
If I understand correctly, this can be achieved by replace
\def\cong to \undexpanded\def\cong in math-pln.
I do not understand expansion very well, but is there a disadvantage
of not defining math characters to be unexpandable to begin with?
Aditya
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
