[luatex] a question about the names \Umathcharnumdef etc

[jfbu]

Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:37, David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On 15 October 2015 at 18:35, jfbu <jfbu at free.fr> wrote:
>> Hi Joseph
>> 
>> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:29, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright at morningstar2.co.uk> a écrit :
>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello Jean-François,
>>> 
>>> The 'real' names of the primitives have always been just \Umath... For
>>> some time they've been enabled with the "luatex" prefix.. The LaTeX team
>>> have recently taken a more 'active' interest in directly supporting
>>> LuaTeX (and XeTeX) by modifying latex.ltx to 'know' about these engines.
>>> As part of that process, we've revised the approach to the newer
>>> primitives and dropped the prefix 'out of the box'.
>>> 
>>> For code that needs to work both with older (pre 2015/10/01) and newer
>>> (2015/10/01 onward) kernel releases, adding
>>> 
>>>   \directlua{
>>>     tex.enableprimitives("luatex", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>>   }
>>> 
>>> (for just the Umath set) will do the job. Alternatively, if the code in
>>> your package gets modified to drop the prefix then
>>> 
>>>   \directlua{
>>>     tex.enableprimitives("", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>>   }
>>> 
>>> will ensure that the 'natural' names are available with older kernel
>>> releases.
>> 
>> 
>> OK, let's see if I get you right: I remove from mathastext.sty
>> all "luatex" prefixes, but also I need to add
>> 
>>   \directlua{
>>     tex.enableprimitives("", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>   }
>> 
>> to mathastext.sty if it detects luatex,
>> 
>> so as to be sure the new version of the package will work also
>> with older LaTeX releases ?
>> 
>> is that right ?
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Jean-François
> 
> 
> That works in general for primitives that were previously prefixed
> \luatex... but the \Umath... names are special in that they were
> previously available both prefixed and not prefixed, so you can just
> use the unprefixed ones.
> 

Hi David,

ok, this is very clear, thanks, sorry if I have one last question does
"previously available" mean "all the way back to 2011" ? 

I can't test it on my laptop which only has TeXLive 2012 and later,
and I would like not to break installations as far back as 2011,

best

Jean-François