TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

So I've read a few times about this, the “moving arguments” and all that. But what does it really mean? Could someone explain in a few words what is going on at the TeX level, what is the difference between these two kinds of commands? Furthermore, when do we need to use \protect and why?

share|improve this question
This is a good question. I'm having difficulty formulating a succinct answer to it, so I guess I'll let someone else have a go at it. Basically, a fragile command is one that does not behave properly when expanded, but not executed. LaTeX uses macros like \protected@edef which cause \protect\foo in the replacement text to expand to itself in contrast to \edef which would (normally) cause \protect\foo to essentially expand to \relax followed by the expansion of \foo. – TH. Oct 31 '10 at 8:27
up vote 137 down vote accepted

The key concept here is that, when TeX handles its input, it is doing two distinct things, called expanding and executing stuff. Normally, these activities are interleaved: TeX takes a token (ie, an elementary piece of input), expands it, then executes it (if possible). Then it does so with the next token. But in certain circumstances, most notably when writing to a file, TeX only expands things without executing them (the result will most probably be (re-expanded and) executed later when TeX reads the file back). Some macros, for proper operation, rely on something being properly executed before the next token is expanded. Those are called "fragile", since they work only in the normal (interleaved) mode, but not in expansion-only contexts (such as "moving arguments" which often means writing to a file).

That's the general picture. Now let's give a few more details.

The distinction between expansion and execution is somewhat arbitrary, but as a rule of thumb:

  • expansion changes only the input stream, ie "what TeX is going to read next";
  • execution is everything else.

For example, macros are expandable (TeX is going to read their replacement text next), \input is expandable (TeX is going to read the given file next), etc. \def is not expandable (it changes the meaning of the defined macro), \kern is not expandable (it changes the content of the current paragraph or page), etc.

Now, consider a macro \foo defined as \def\arg{#1}\ifx\arg\empty T\else F\fi. In normal context, TeX will try to expand \def (which does nothing) then execute it (which removes \arg{#1} from the input stream and defines \arg) then expand the next token \ifx (which removes \arg\empty and possibly everything up to, but not including, the matching \else from the input stream), etc.

In expansion-only context, TeX will try to expand \def (does nothing), then expand whatever comes next ie the \arg. At this point, anything could happen. Maybe \arg is not defined and you get a (confusing) error message. Maybe it is defined to something like abc, to \foo{} will expand to \def abc{} F. You'll not get an error when writing this to the file, but it will crash when read back. Perhaps \argis defined to \abc, then \foo{} will expand to \def\abc{} F. Then you get not error message either when writing nor at readback, but not only you get F while you're expecting T, but also \abc is redefined, which can have all kinds of consequences if this is an important macro (and good luck for tracking the bug down).

This was the easy (read: TeXnical, but well-defined) part of your question. Now, the hard part: when to use \protect? Well it depends. You cannot know whether a macro is fragile or not without looking at is implementation. For example, the \foo macro above could use an expandable trick to test for emptyness and would not be fragile. Also, some macros are "self-\protecting" (those defined with \DeclareRobustCommand for example). As Joseph mentioned, \( is fragile unless you (or another package) loaded fixltx2e. (As a rule of thumb, most mathmode macros are fragile.) Also, you cannot know whether a particular macro tries to expand-only its arguments, but you can at least be sure all moving arguments will be expanded-only at some point.

So, my advice is: when you see a weird error happening in or near a moving argument, try \protecting every macro in it. It solves 99% of the problems. (And can make you a hero when applied to a colleague's article, due today and "mysteriously" crashing: look at their document for a few seconds before you see a math formula inside a \section, say "add a \protect here", then go back to work and let them call you a wizard. Cheap trick, but works.)

share|improve this answer
I accepted this answer mostly because of the first paragraph that gives a neat and succinct explanation. The rest of the details in the following paragraphs are also quite helpful to figure out more of the details. – Juan A. Navarro Nov 1 '10 at 11:48
I agree that the first paragraph is very clear. However i'd still want to see a simple complete example that I could feed into TeX or LaTeX so I could see how \protect works. – Jay Jun 19 '12 at 12:20
I get the impression that \def\arg{#1}\ifx\arg\empty E\else F\fi (which doesn't compile) was intended to be a test of whether the argument passed to \arg was empty or not, and produce T if it is and F if it isn't...but I'm not aware of a way to use either \if or \ifx to do that, I would use \ifthenelse from the ifthen package, i.e. \def\isargempty#1{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{T}{F}}. – Theodore Murdock Aug 7 '12 at 14:27
@TheodoreMurdock \def\arg{#1}\ifx\arg\empty E\else F\fi is the definition of \foo, so it's intended to be a test of whether the argument passed to \foo is empty (not \arg as you say). – ruds Feb 2 '13 at 6:18
But how do I use this definition for \foo? If I try it as given, the error reads Illegal parameter number in definition of \arg. How do I make it work? – MickG Dec 30 '13 at 14:42

The key concept here is expansion. I'll take as an example a hypothetical function \foo which is 'fragile', used in the argument of \section:

\section{Some text \foo[option]{argument}}

When LaTeX processes the \section macro, it does a number of things. One of those is to write the text of the section name to the .aux file. Now, the key point here is that this uses the \write primitive, effectively:

\immediate\write\@auxout{Some text \foo[option]{argument}}

The \write primitive expands its argument in the same way as \edef. However, I've said that \foo is 'fragile'. That means that trying to \edef it will either lead to an error or the wrong result. A classic case for this is any macro with an optional argument: the detection of these cannot be expanded inside an \edef. The other is where something will be numbered based on where it is in the input, which can give bad numbering in the output. See for example http://texblog.net/help/latex/fragile.html for more details on macros which are fragile (but note that the fixltx2e package sorts out some of these).

When you use \protect, it prevents TeX expanding the next token during the \write. So the text is written 'as given' to the .aux file. This of course requires that you know which functions need to be protected. As TH notes, it also needs the correct use of \protected@write or \protected@edef to work correctly. (The way that these macros work is by altering the definition of \protect to achieve the desired effects. So inside \protected@edef, the expansion of \protect is \noexpand\protect\noexpand, for example.)

The macro \DeclareRobustCommand is available in LaTeX2e. This adds some automatic protect into the macro itself, so that \protect is not needed. This again works inside a \protected@write situation.

This is good, but a better method is e-TeX's \protected system:


Macros defined in this way are not expanded inside an \edef or a \write at all, as the engine itself knows to leave them alone. This is the approach taken by etoolbox and xparse for defining truly robust macros. Macros which are engine-protected don't rely on LaTeX2e's mechanisms at all, so are safe inside a plain \edef.

share|improve this answer
So these two commands are equivalent (with or without redundant command brackets): \DeclareRobustCommand{\setlanguage}[1] and \protected\def{\setlanguage}[1]? Also xparse's version \DeclareDocumentCommand{\setlanguage}{O{}} is equivalent? All ignore any previously defined commands...all are "robust" (which I seem to understand as meaning "protected from expansion") – macmadness86 Sep 7 '15 at 6:52
@macmadness86 No. \DeclareRobustCommand makes LaTeX2e robust commands, which as 'safe' inside \protected@edef and so on but not inside a raw \edef. \protected\def... makes an engine-protected command, which never expands in an \edef-like context. xparse uses \protected internally so its commands are engine-protected. – Joseph Wright Sep 7 '15 at 7:28

This question is perhaps best answered by an example. Consider the fragile command \title. Here are the relevant definitions from latex.ltx:

\def\@title{\@latex@error{No \noexpand\title given}\@ehc}

Now imagine that you include \title{This is the title} in the argument of a command that first executes this argument, then writes it to the aux file, or otherwise “moves” it. We can run an interactive experiment to see what would happen, using \edef to immediately see the result:

; latex
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-1.40.11 (TeX Live 2010)
 restricted \write18 enabled.
*\title{This is the title}

*\edef\foo{\title{This is the title}}

> \foo=macro:
->\gdef This is the title{This is the title}.
<*> \show\foo

As you can imagine (try it if you must), actually executing \foo will not work as you might have expected before running this experiment. The problem, of course, is that \@title got expanded.

To find out how \protect works, you could do worse than running texdoc source2e and looking at section 11.4, Robust commands and protect.

share|improve this answer
The general point here (that any macro which performs an assignment is fragile) is one that we're trying to address in the LaTeX3 work. There, the rule is simple: every macro that performs an assignment (or uses one which does) has to be e-TeX protected. That leads to two distinct classes of macro: fully expandable ones and protected ones. The idea is that this type of ambiguity should be avoided. – Joseph Wright Oct 31 '10 at 10:11
@HaraldHanche-Olsen When you say "or otherwise 'moves' it", do you mean "or in other words 'moves' it"? I was just trying to understand people when they use the word "move", which seems like a strange term to use when referring to the process of writing to a file. – macmadness86 Jul 19 at 11:17
@macmadness86 That was nearly six years ago – hard to say exactly what I meant at the time! But I think I did mean otherwise. The word “move” may seem strange, but recall the point of LaTeX: Typesetting stuff in a file. Most of the time, what is in the file is typeset in the same order, but sometimes, data from one part of the input file gets typeset in a totally different part than nearby data from the input file. Hence it is “moved” from its natural location. The most common way is indeed to write it to the aux file, so it can be read back in during the next run … – Harald Hanche-Olsen Jul 19 at 22:10
… and probably saved in a command or token register, in order to be typeset later. But other times, the aux file is bypassed and data is just saved for later use. So that must be what I was thinking of when I said “otherwise”. Perhaps. – Harald Hanche-Olsen Jul 19 at 22:12

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.