[luatex] a question about the names \Umathcharnumdef etc

[Joseph Wright]

On 15/10/2015 19:20, jfbu wrote:
> 
> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:58, jfbu <jfbu at free.fr> a écrit :
> 
>>
>> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:43, jfbu <jfbu at free.fr> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:37, David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On 15 October 2015 at 18:35, jfbu <jfbu at free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 15 oct. 2015 à 19:29, Joseph Wright <joseph.wright at morningstar2.co.uk> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Jean-François,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'real' names of the primitives have always been just \Umath... For
>>>>>> some time they've been enabled with the "luatex" prefix.. The LaTeX team
>>>>>> have recently taken a more 'active' interest in directly supporting
>>>>>> LuaTeX (and XeTeX) by modifying latex.ltx to 'know' about these engines.
>>>>>> As part of that process, we've revised the approach to the newer
>>>>>> primitives and dropped the prefix 'out of the box'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For code that needs to work both with older (pre 2015/10/01) and newer
>>>>>> (2015/10/01 onward) kernel releases, adding
>>>>>>
>>>>>> \directlua{
>>>>>>   tex.enableprimitives("luatex", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (for just the Umath set) will do the job. Alternatively, if the code in
>>>>>> your package gets modified to drop the prefix then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> \directlua{
>>>>>>   tex.enableprimitives("", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will ensure that the 'natural' names are available with older kernel
>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, let's see if I get you right: I remove from mathastext.sty
>>>>> all "luatex" prefixes, but also I need to add
>>>>>
>>>>> \directlua{
>>>>>   tex.enableprimitives("", tex.extraprimitives("Umath"))
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> to mathastext.sty if it detects luatex,
>>>>>
>>>>> so as to be sure the new version of the package will work also
>>>>> with older LaTeX releases ?
>>>>>
>>>>> is that right ?
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-François
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That works in general for primitives that were previously prefixed
>>>> \luatex... but the \Umath... names are special in that they were
>>>> previously available both prefixed and not prefixed, so you can just
>>>> use the unprefixed ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> ok, this is very clear, thanks, sorry if I have one last question does
>>> "previously available" mean "all the way back to 2011" ? 
>>>
>>> I can't test it on my laptop which only has TeXLive 2012 and later,
>>> and I would like not to break installations as far back as 2011,
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> Jean-François
>>
>> Hi David/Joseph,
>>
>> [ I apologize to the list, perhaps I should move this discussion to 
>> a LaTeX list ]
>>
>> sorry again, but texdoc ltnews did not give me the following info:
>>
>> should I also remove the "xetex" prefixes and use "\Umathchardef" 
>> also under XeLaTeX ? from texdoc xetex, the primitives are there
>> only with "U" prefix.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Jean-François
>>
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> sorry for all the fuss. I will do
> 
>   \let\mst at Umathcharnumdef\Umathcharnumdef
>   \let\mst at Umathcodenum\Umathcodenum
>   \let\mst at Umathcode\Umathcode
>   \let\mst at Umathchardef\Umathchardef
> 
> then test if \mst at Umathcode is \undefined
> and in the latter case use either "luatexU" or "XeTeX"
> prefix depending on the engine,
> 
> besides I am sorry about the TL2011 thing, because
> regarding LuaLaTeX the doc of mathastext says 
> already TL2013 or later is needed.
> 
> mathastext.sty will be leaner as I can not
> treat identically both unicode engines
> 
> best wishes
> 
> Jean-François

>From TL2013 both XeTeX and LuaTeX have \Umath...

Joseph