Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
Hi Hans and Taco,
Do you think it makes sense to replace {\rm mod} in the definition of bmod and pmod (in math-pln.tex) by \mfunction{mod}?
Another request: I am thinking of updating the nath module, and I notice that nath.sty goes into considerable length to make math commands "robust" (whatever that means). Basically
\def\makerobust#1{% \expandafter\let\csname @o@\expandafter\gobbleoneargument\string #1\endcsname=#1 \unexpanded\def#1{\csname @o@\expandafter\gobbleoneargument\string #1\endcsname}}
% Making composed math symbols robust:
\makerobust\cong \makerobust\notin
If I understand correctly, this can be achieved by replace
\def\cong to \undexpanded\def\cong in math-pln.
The \makerobust command is simply \let\@o@cong=\cong \unexpanded\def\cont{\@o@cong}
I do not understand expansion very well, but is there a disadvantage of not defining math characters to be unexpandable to begin with?
Every (or almost every, let's be a bit careful) macro in math mode could be make unexpandable. Taco