[tex-k] Bug-report for the TeXbook: Not all non-primitive control-sequences are defined, ultimately, in terms of the primitive ones.

[Yannis Haralambous]

I think the debate is about the semantics of the verb "to define" and of the expression "in terms" in Don's text.

If by "defined" he meant "defined through the \def or the \let command" and if by "in terms" he meant that
"strictly only that" then Ukirch might have bern right.

But IMHO this is not what Don meant.

What he meant is that in the expansion of commands you can use many things including primitive and non-primitive
commands, but if you continue expanding you will end up with having no non-primitive commands.

If he meant otherwise he would use neither "in terms" nor "ultimately". This statement is not part of a formal grammar,
it is just a comment about the special status of primitive commands.

> Le 10 déc. 2022 à 16:18, ud.usenetcorrespondence at web.de a écrit :
> 
>>>> ***All other control sequences are
>>>> | defined, ultimately, in terms of the primitive ones.***

Yannis

 <http://www.imt-atlantique.fr/>	Yannis HARALAMBOUS
Professor
Computer Science Department
UMR CNRS 6285 Lab-STICC
 <https://www.imt-atlantique.fr/en/person/yannis-haralambous> <https://twitter.com/y_haralambous> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/yannis-haralambous-5529073?trk=hp-identity-name>Technopôle Brest-Iroise CS 83818
29238 Brest Cedex 3, France
Une École de l'IMT <http://www.imt.fr/>

‌The way to make a name in linguistics is to make a name in linguistics.
‌(John M. Lawler, ‌English Language Forum)‌

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-k/attachments/20221210/82a820de/attachment.html>