in many places, latex defines \par (usually via \everypar) to do a lot of non-obvious things, things which most ordinary users (and even some "experts") haven't investigated and aren't aware of. using `\endgraf' in these situations can lead to unexpected results.
some places where \par is much safer are
note that a blank line in these contexts is equivalent to \par, not \endgraf.
in certain situations, such as within a footnote in plain tex, \par isn't accepted, and \endgraf must be used instead. however, latex.ltx contains the line \let\endgraf=\par so i'm not really sure where \endgraf would be required in latex. (i've been corrupted sufficiently by long years of using plain tex that i sometimes get these things confused.)
\endgrafrather than\par? – barbara beeton Feb 5 at 13:41\endgrafthan\parwhen the code might be used within the argument of a non-\longmacro. My question is to know why anyone would use\parrather than\endgraf, since I thought that the definition of the latter is\def\endgraf{\par}and as such most often behaves identically. David provides a case where\paris correct but not\endgraf. – Bruno Le Floch Feb 5 at 18:53\endgrafis, of course,\let\endgraf\par. For some of us,\endgrafcomes to the mind from the old days of Plain TeX; it has to be the "primitive\par" or\let\par\endgrafwould pose some small problems.;-)And LaTeX uses it all the time in the form\let\par\@@par. You use\@@par(or\endgraf, the same) when you are sure you want the primitive meaning of\par. – egreg Feb 5 at 21:08