[OS X TeX] New Version of CommandCompletion.txt for TeXShop

Jérôme Laurens jerome.laurens at u-bourgogne.fr
Thu Sep 30 12:37:06 CEST 2004


Le 30 sept. 04, à 12:05, Herb Schulz a écrit :

> On 9/29/04 10:14 PM, "Will Robertson" <will at guerilla.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2004, at 12:25 PM, Herb Schulz wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there some reason you believe that $...$ is more robust?
>>
>> Well, I've traced down why I thought so: David Kastrup wrote on
>> comp.text.tex the following:
>>
>>> You have to be aware that $ is robust, while \(...\) is not.  That 
>>> is,
>>> if you say something like
>>>    \section{\(E=mc^2\)}
>>> it will barf, whereas the version with $...$ works fine.
>>
>> While I haven't checked it, I'd believe him.
>>
>> Will
>>
>> PS I like using \( and \) for \left( and \right) respectively.
>>
>
> Howdy,
>
> I just took a look at the definitions of \( and \) in latex.ltx and 
> they
> seem rather innocuous. Because the open/close of the equation is no 
> longer
> symmetric \( checks to make sure you're not in math mode already before
> issuing a $ and \) makes sure you are in math mode before issuing the 
> $.
> Maybe there is something in the generation of the error message that 
> isn't
> robust? When was that statement made? Maybe later versions of LaTeX2e 
> became
> more robust; I seem to remember something like that happening as time 
> went
> by.
>

I should not rely on the latex.ltx definition as it is so easy to patch 
a built in command.
So many packages just override built in commands to extend their 
capabilities

--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>





More information about the Macostex-archives mailing list