[latex3-commits] [git/LaTeX3-latex3-latex2e] develop: fixes #175 [ci skip] (0e776a62)

[Frank Mittelbach]

Repository : https://github.com/latex3/latex2e
On branch  : develop
Link       : https://github.com/latex3/latex2e/commit/0e776a62529373838a342b813e6a9d1223b08990

>---------------------------------------------------------------

commit 0e776a62529373838a342b813e6a9d1223b08990
Author: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach at latex-project.org>
Date:   Thu Sep 12 17:40:07 2019 +0200

    fixes #175  [ci skip]


>---------------------------------------------------------------

0e776a62529373838a342b813e6a9d1223b08990
 base/ltdefns.dtx | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/base/ltdefns.dtx b/base/ltdefns.dtx
index 4c58c019..3d4c3f39 100644
--- a/base/ltdefns.dtx
+++ b/base/ltdefns.dtx
@@ -1171,8 +1171,21 @@
 % \changes{v1.5f}{2019/08/27}{Make the assignments global as we may
 %   need to apply them inside a group}
 %
-% The macro firstly checks if the control sequence in question exists
-% at all.
+%    This macro makes an existing fragile macro robust, but only if it
+%    hasn't been robust in the past, i.e., it checks for the existence
+%    of the macro
+%    \verb*=\<name> = and if that exists it assumes that
+%    \verb=\<name>= is already robust. In that case either undefine
+%    the inner macro first or use \cs{DeclareRobustCommand} to
+%    define it in a robust way directly.  We could probably test the
+%    top-level definition to have the right kind of structure, but
+%    this is somewhat problematical as we then have to distinguish
+%    between \cs{long} macros and others and also take into account
+%    that sometimes the top-level is deliberately dones manually (like
+%    with \cs{begin}).
+%
+%    The macro firstly checks if the control sequence in question exists
+%    at all.
 %    \begin{macrocode}
 %</2ekernel>
 %<latexrelease>\IncludeInRelease{2019/10/01}{\MakeRobust}{\MakeRobust}%