Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> 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.
The \makerobust command is simply
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@cong=\cong
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@cong}
> I do not understand expansion very well, but is there a disadvantage
> of not defining math characters to be unexpandable to begin with?
Every (or almost every, let's be a bit careful) macro in math mode
could be make unexpandable.
Taco
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
