[latexrefman] Command vs macro

[Vincent Belaïche]

Any feedback ?

Le dim. 12 avr. 2020 à 20:56, Vincent Belaïche
<vincent.belaiche at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I must admit that I have not yet reverted the two occurrences where you
> (Karl) consider that we should keep « command».
>
> Well, I agree, only « fragile commands » is a defined phrase.
>
> But then in the sentence «  to make more commands be safe or…» (current
> text still has « macros » instead of «commands»), what does «safe» mean,
> why not just « robust » ?
>
> I think that an example is the definiton of \caption, where \label is
> redefined as \let\label\@gobble to play no havoc.
>
> BTW, this doing makes it impossible for packages like cleveref to
> redefine \label with an optional argument to work properly in some
> cases. LaTeX kernel should have some \neuratalize at label hook instead of
> directly \let\label\@gobble, then \neuratalize at label would be defined as
> \def\neutralize at label{\let\label\@gobble}, so this way cleveref would
> just have to redefine \neutralize at label to make neutralized \label to
> also admit an opt arg.
>
>    V.
>
> Le 31/03/2020 à 00:57, Karl Berry a écrit :
> >      http://svn.gnu.org.ua/viewvc/latexrefman/trunk/latex2e.texi?r1=760&r2=777
> >
> > I agree with the first two changes,
> >    ... any macros in @var{string} will be expanded ...
> >    ... the macros are unexpanded until shipout ...
> >
> > But not with the other two:
> >    ... on fragile macros ...
> >    ... make more macros be safe ...
> >
> > As far as I've seen, the fragile concept is nearly universally used in
> > the phrase "fragile commands". I can't recall ever seeing "fragile
> > macros". And "commands" is not incorrect. So I think it is more
> > confusing than helpful; I doubt anyone would make the connection with
> > expansion vs. execution. If we want to say something about that, I think
> > we should do it explicitly. --thanks, karl.