On 2018-02-18 15:25, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

Rik Kabel

18. Februar 2018 um 21:06

On 2018-02-18 14:33, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

It does not matter how many fonts support both (LM does, and Libertine). One feature of a BibTeX file is reusability for many documents, and when the file is created you do not know what will be the default emphasis of the document. By explicitly coding \it, you are assured that the italic face will be attempted. If it is not available, there should be an error message, and you can then have a discussion with your editor. The claim of the new bibliography subsystem is that it will implement APA strictly, and that calls for italic.

I understand as well that \em allows switching (reverse emphasis as noted above). It also provides some italic correction. I am asking about the appropriate use of the two variations of \em: \emph  (which is a grouped command \em) and \emphasized (defined as \bgroup\em\let\nexttoken). I understand and make use of grouped commands -- they are largely syntactic sugar, but I like sugar. I am less certain of the purpose of \emphasized, how it works, and why it might be useful. I do not recall seeing a command definition with a bgroup and no egroup before.

\em -> {\em ...}

\emph -> \emph{...} or {\emph ...}

\emphasized -> \emphasized{...}

Wolfgang

Yes. \em is a font switch. \emph can be either a command or a font switch. \emphasized is only a command. But why have \emphasized? Under what circumstances would a casual user prefer it? Under what circumstances a more advanced user, or someone writing a module, employ it? What does it do differently than \emph used as a command?

Grepping the source, I see thirty or so occurrences of the pattern \bgroup...\let\nexttoken. I do not understand just what it does. Can you explain it, or direct me to a good place to learn about it?