[texhax] Is redefining primitives a good idea?

Vafa Khalighi simurgh12 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 05:13:45 CEST 2012

TeX (PDFTeX, XeTeX, luatex) complains that:

You can't use \eqno in vertical mode.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:48:16PM +1000, Vafa Khalighi wrote:
> > As an example amsmath.sty redefines \eqno and \leqno. Would not it be
> better to
> > define new macros rather than redefining existing primitives? and how
> one can
> > (if a package already redefines some primitives), restore the original
> > definition of the primitive? so that a primitive is really a primitive?
> PdfTeX has \pdfprimitive that can be used to access the original
> definition of any primitive, e.g. \pdfprimitive\eqno. LuaTeX and XeTeX
> have it under \primitive name.
> Regards,
>  Khaled
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20120424/8f41a18e/attachment.html>

More information about the texhax mailing list