On 16/10/2015 09:35, jfbu wrote: > > Le 16 oct. 2015 à 09:47, Ulrike Fischer <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Am Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:18:58 +0100 schrieb David Carlisle: >> >>>> or perhaps \Umathcharnumdef was always ok ? >>> >>> yes, it was, the Umath... commands were always available with their >>> basic luatex names and also prefixed luatex. >> >> That's not true. In a texlive 2012 >> >> \documentclass{article} >> >> \begin{document} >> \show\Umathcharnumdef >> \show\luatexUmathcharnumdef >> \end{document} >> >> gives >> >>> \Umathcharnumdef=undefined. >> l.36 \show\Umathcharnumdef >> >> ? >>> \luatexUmathcharnumdef=\Umathcharnumdef. >> l.37 \show\luatexUmathcharnumdef > > The file > /usr/local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/tex/latex/latexconfig/lualatexiniconfig.tex > says that >> % etex and pdftex primitives are enabled without prefixing >> % as well as extented Unicode math primitives (see below) >> > > but as your test file shows this was not the case for \Umathcharnumdef > (and also \Umathcodenum which I tested).
In older versions of LuaTeX, the \U... primitives were part of the "luatex" list so were enabled with the \luatex... prefix. Those primitives now live in a dedicated "umath" list so cn be enabled separately from the other LuaTeX-specific ones. > I recall now that mathastext prior to TeXLive 2013 did not use > \luatexUmathcharnumdef because the right side of the assignment would have > been \luatexUmathcodenum`\-\relax, but \luatexUmathcodenum back then > did not always return a Unicode mathcode. This is the issue with supporting older versions of a developing engine! I'd suggest you strongly consider saying that only newer releases are supported. (The LaTeX team are considering much the same for expl3/LuaTeX support.) Joseph
