David Carlisle once wrote:
> xspace was a silly idea. [1]
An answer of David concerning the drawbacks of xspace [2] ends with:
> So, if you find it useful, fine, it's there. But personally I
wouldn't recommend it.
Based on that and the fact, that it is not part of the base core, i
would omit mentioning it in the ref manual.
[1] http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/41?m=9404871#9404871
[2]
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/86565/drawbacks-of-xspace/86620#86620
On 01/31/2016 12:21 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
Well, this is not *The* solution,
Certainly true.
1) follow the command by an explicit space `\ '
I added a little text about that (and changed the wording). Committed.
2) Use package xspace, and tail the definition of command by \xspace.
I'm not sure about mentioning xspace in our manual here; it's not part
of core LaTeX, and can cause hard-to-track-down errors. So I left it
out for the moment, though I don't feel that strongly about it.
A bigger issue is that the whole story of ignoring spaces after control
sequences has nothing to do with \newcommand. Thus the description
should be somewhere in the basic syntax description, with an xref in the
\newcommand and \typeout nodes. But I couldn't deal with that today.
Thanks,
Karl
