Sensei <[email protected]> wrote: > > (note, ulrike's is the first lua code i've run; i tend to spend my tex > > time behind the bleading edge, hoping to ride others' shock waves...) > > That code essentially satifies me. > > One thing that I've noticed though is this: it isn't > "hierarchical". If I add a package, there seems no distinction on > symbols.
that's a property of hash tables. a new cs will be put in the table at a place selected by the hashing algorithm, not by the specifics of its definition. as far as the hash table (indeed, the tex engine as a whole) is concerned, a cs is nothing more than a link to its definition. > You may say that it's the way TeX works, and that could be fine with > me. But this also means that we are unable to know the origin of > symbols > > Is this last step hopeless? yes. you could take snapshots of the hash table before loading each package, and then compare them. (this would require sorting the name list, presumably.) > (which package defines, for instance, \mathbb?). quite a lot. of tex required packages, the answer is something in the amslatex distribution, by the look of it, but several packages provide alternative bb characters.
