TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Note: this is more or less a cross-post from my blog. I hope this is acceptable, especially that this is a genuine question!

I’m currently writing a (longish) document on mathematics. Among other things, I write about the Hausdorff metric, which I denote by $d_H$. Since this notation appears quite often, I decided to write a command for it:


The additional braces are there, because sometimes I want to talk about a ball with respect to the Hausdorff metric, denoted by $B_{d_H}$ – for that, I wanted to write B_\dH. Without the extra braces this won’t work (for obvious reasons).

So far, so good. But there’s another catch: I want a similar notion to the Hausdorff metric (call it a Haudorff quasimetric), which I denote by $d_H^*$. With my definition, \dH^* won’t work (I want the star to be above the subscript). So I wanted to be clever, and use an optional star; this way, I could write \dH or \dH*. I did this:


But my ability to write B_\dH is lost now! And of course, adding braces around \@ifstar won’t help: it will then never “see” the star. (Note: I know that xparse makes defining commands with optional stars easier, but I expect it won't help with my problem.)

Personally, I can see no way out of this dilemma. It’s not a big deal, I can write B_{\dH} (which is cleaner LaTeX syntax anyway), but I’m curious whether there’s any way to eat this cake and have it, too.

share|improve this question
I think it is better to accept to always use B_{\dH}, as promoting B_\dH to ends up being weird as it depends on the definition of \dH. I might even consider using \BdH as a shortcut for that ball – daleif Aug 8 '14 at 9:42
Agreed (I more or less stated it in the question anyway), but my curiosity is still unsatisfied... – mbork Aug 8 '14 at 9:43
I'm guessing you will need some of the hardcore expl3 people to explain how this can be done with xparse, using {d_H} in an \NewDocumentCommand, then B_\dH does not work at all. – daleif Aug 8 '14 at 9:47
Might even be better to make a more intelligent ball macro instead with a syntax like \Ball[type=H](0,1) – daleif Aug 8 '14 at 9:48
up vote 27 down vote accepted

Delay the closing of the group: after _, one can use \bgroup.

\newcommand\dH{\bgroup d_H\@ifstar{^*\egroup}{\egroup}}

$B_\dH$ and $B_\dH*$

enter image description here

But avoid it.

share|improve this answer
+1 even though unbalanced groups always hurt my brain. Does one need to use \bgroup...\egroup here or would \begingroup...\endgroup also be possible? – Henri Menke Aug 8 '14 at 10:05
This. Is. Pure. Awesome. (Though an extremely dirty trick.) The only reason I didn't accept this (yet?) is that I want to wait for more answers (though it seems unlikely that they'll come...) May I submit this to the "TeX beauties and oddities" session for the next BachoTeX conference (with due credit, of course?) – mbork Aug 8 '14 at 10:10
@mbork Of course you can. ;-) Note that \bgroup...\egroup don't hurt when \dH is used at the normal level, because the symbol is ordinary anyway. – egreg Aug 8 '14 at 10:15
One question: why define \s@dH? – mbork Aug 8 '14 at 10:27
@mbork Possibly not needed, actually. Removed. – egreg Aug 8 '14 at 10:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.