[texhax] problem with a defined command

[Lars Madsen]

Lots and lots of authors does this

Even including \cite{..} in the abstract and not including the bibliography in the test forwarded my email.

There is also the other extreme where authors submit article with miles and miles of homemade macros, where upon further analysis, it turns out only two was actually used. This is especially annoying when dealing with proceedings where one might want to compile everything as one merged document. 

/Lars Madsen
Institut for Matematik / Department of Mathematics
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
Mere info: http://au.dk/daleif@imf / More information: http://au.dk/en/daleif@imf


________________________________________
From: Philip Taylor [P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk]
Sent: 17 January 2014 11:45
To: Victor Ivrii
Cc: Lars Madsen; texhax at tug.org
Subject: Re: [texhax] problem with a defined command

Victor Ivrii wrote:

> But more than this: then the author writes an abstract using these
> macros, then goes somewhere to give a talk and sends this abstract
> (which does not contain definitions) and the announcement contains lots
> of \eeq, \beq, \ups, \eps, \alp,
>
> I really want to tell the speaker: \smek! \wthis? your abstract is pure
> \drek!

Why would any author with even a vestege of sense submit an abstract
relying on macro definitions that were not included ?

Philip Taylor