[latexrefman-discuss] *The* solution is to type @code{@{@}} after the command and before the space.

[Johannes Böttcher]

David Carlisle once wrote:
 > xspace was a silly idea. [1]

An answer of David concerning the drawbacks of xspace [2] ends with:
 > So, if you find it useful, fine, it's there. But personally I 
wouldn't recommend it.


Based on that and the fact, that it is not part of the base core, i 
would omit mentioning it in the ref manual.


[1] http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/41?m=9404871#9404871
[2] 
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/86565/drawbacks-of-xspace/86620#86620





On 01/31/2016 12:21 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
>      Well, this is not *The* solution,
>
> Certainly true.
>
>      1) follow the command by an explicit space `\ '
>
> I added a little text about that (and changed the wording).  Committed.
>
>      2) Use package xspace, and tail the definition of command by \xspace.
>
> I'm not sure about mentioning xspace in our manual here; it's not part
> of core LaTeX, and can cause hard-to-track-down errors.  So I left it
> out for the moment, though I don't feel that strongly about it.
>
> A bigger issue is that the whole story of ignoring spaces after control
> sequences has nothing to do with \newcommand.  Thus the description
> should be somewhere in the basic syntax description, with an xref in the
> \newcommand and \typeout nodes.  But I couldn't deal with that today.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>