Hans Hagen wrote:
Ok, then what's \protected? Is it performing an \unprotect/\protect
pair around the definition? But then, why did it work?
in context protext/unprotect is to be used when ! @ ? are used inmacro
names which was not the case here
I know. So, does ConTeXt's \protected\def tem
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Friday, November 19, 2004 h h extern wrote:
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Shall this go in nath? Or, Hans, will you protect those macros?
if so, i need to protect the lot, any system/logic behind what to protect ?
I have no idea. Everything? What's the downside of protecting a
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Shall this go in nath? Or, Hans, will you protect those macros?
if so, i need to protect the lot, any system/logic behind what to protect ?
Hans
-
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA AD
* Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Nov 19, 2004 16:40]:
> \let\unprotectedlongrightarrow\longrightarrow
> \unexpanded\def\longrightarrow{\unprotectedlongrightarrow}
Thanks, that works fine,
nikolai
--
::: name: Nikolai Weibull:: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka :::
::: born: Chicago, IL
Christopher Creutzig wrote:
Hans Hagen wrote:
first of all, \protected is not what you think it is; i had a
\protected before etex was around; the context name is \unexpanded
Ok, then what's \protected? Is it performing an \unprotect/\protect
pair around the definition? But then, why did it w
Hans Hagen wrote:
first of all, \protected is not what you think it is; i had a \protected
before etex was around; the context name is \unexpanded
Ok, then what's \protected? Is it performing an \unprotect/\protect
pair around the definition? But then, why did it work?
\let\unprotectedlongrig
Christopher Creutzig wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
! Undefined control sequence.
\dodosmash [#1]->\edef \@@smash
{#1}\futurelet \nexttoken \dododosmash
\relbar ->\mathrel {\smash
-}
Uh-uh. The problem is clear: \inlinemath tries (in the
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
! Undefined control sequence.
\dodosmash [#1]->\edef \@@smash
{#1}\futurelet \nexttoken \dododosmash
\relbar ->\mathrel {\smash
-}
Uh-uh. The problem is clear: \inlinemath tries (in the definition of
\inlinemath@)
* Giuseppe Bilotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Nov 18, 2004 16:40]:
> > \usemodule[nath]
> > \starttext
> > \startnathequation
> > \underbrace{\mathstrut rr\dots r}_{n \text{times}}
> > \stopnathequation
> > \stoptext
> > Error:
> > ! Missing } inserted.
> >
> > My guess is that the expansion of \ma
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> Example:
> \usemodule[nath]
> \starttext
> \startnathequation
> \underbrace{\mathstrut rr\dots r}_{n \text{times}}
> \stopnathequation
> \stoptext
> Error:
> ! Missing } inserted.
>
[snip]
> My guess is that the expansion of \mathstrut,
10 matches
Mail list logo
