# Enriching \to^*

I am trying to enrich $\to^*$ with a $w$ above it, and the cleanest look I could get was with the {\smash {\overset w \rightarrow}}^* command. However, I believe this to be a pretty ugly solution, and \smash also smashes the space between two variables and the arrow itself (in for example $g {\smash {\overset w \rightarrow}}^* g'$. Is there a better solution that does not result in the w to be high above the arrow, or the * high above the arrow?

PS: How do you use mathmode or how can you display TeX commands? On other SE sites you can use .

-
Regarding your P.S.: You can't, as it's usually the code itself that is interesting. See for example Why doesn't maths render as maths? on meta. You have to upload an image manually. –  Torbjørn T. Apr 15 '12 at 17:00
How about $g \mathrel{{\stackrel{\hskip-0.7ex w}{\to}}}{\hskip-1ex}^* g'$? Also, I really think that it is not LaTeX but it's the notation that makes it uncomfortable. –  percusse Apr 15 '12 at 17:24
possible duplicate of Arrow with an asterisk superscript and text above? –  Caramdir Apr 15 '12 at 23:44
I wonder if we should dupe the older question to this one: the solution here looks cleaner to me. –  Joseph Wright Apr 16 '12 at 6:10
@JosephWright: It certainly is. As egreg points out, the solution in the other question also gives wrong line height. On the other hand, the other question has a better formulated question text. –  Caramdir Apr 16 '12 at 23:29

You have to put a "phantom" arrow; here \tostar is defined to have an optional argument, the letter that goes over the arrow (default w):

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand\tostar[1][w]{%
\xrightarrow{#1}\mathrel{\vphantom{\to}^*}
}

\begin{document}
$a \tostar b$
\end{document}


We use the fact that TeX doesn't insert spaces between two relation symbols.

-
Perfect! This isn't the first time I've seen "phantom". Does it have some meaning? –  codd Apr 15 '12 at 18:59
The \vphantom{\to} only occupies the vertical space of \to so we can append the asterisk to the right height. –  egreg Apr 15 '12 at 19:23