[texhax] TeX vs LaTeX primitives

[Lars Madsen]

Isn't also one of the goals of ltx3 to separate the user interface from the implementation?

Such that there are macros that the end users are suppose to use, and macros (presumably including tex primatives) that package authors can use.



/Lars Madsen
Institut for Matematik / Department of Mathematics
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
Mere info: http://au.dk/daleif@imf / More information: http://au.dk/en/daleif@imf


________________________________________
From: texhax [texhax-bounces at tug.org] on behalf of Ulrike Fischer [news3 at nililand.de]
Sent: 30 December 2013 11:35
To: texhax at tug.org
Subject: Re: [texhax] TeX vs LaTeX primitives

Am Mon, 30 Dec 2013 03:48:34 -0500 schrieb Victor Ivrii:

>> If you are using TeX primitives instead of LaTeX macros you certainly
>> lose parts of LaTeX's functionality.

> Reinhard's response raises in me 2 questions

> 1) In particular: I use very seldom hbox to avoid breakage of lines in
> multiline environment (f.e. in the title of the chapter) or  for some other
> exotic reasons (example below) when everything else I tried failed. What
> one can do instead?

\mbox or \makebox. The second has an optional argument to set the
width and another to set the alignment:  \makebox[0pt][l]{...}

For math there is also \mathllap, \mathmakebox etc from the
mathtools package.

> 2) How in general distinguish truly LaTeX macros?

By looking in the code or the documentation.


--
Ulrike Fischer
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/

_______________________________________________
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
Mailing list archives: http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/
More links: http://tug.org/begin.html

Automated subscription management: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/texhax
Human mailing list managers: postmaster at tug.org