2,344 reputation
11240
bio website roy.fr.eu.org
location Berlin, Germany
age 40
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen Feb 21 at 8:57

I'm

  • a mathematician
  • a jazz pianist
  • a Linux user
  • a fan of Rubik's cube
  • ...

Jun
24
comment how to redefine the `\\` in a tabular environment?
ok, now i understand your code. Actually, you let the old tabular act. I would prefer to completely rewrite (and simplify) the definition of tabular. At the end I want to be able to pass it into a \edef and a \write, but maybe it is a different question (see tex.stackexchange.com/q/60851/10157)
Jun
24
comment how to create a fully-expandable environment
@egreg: please see my edit.
Jun
24
revised how to create a fully-expandable environment
added 680 characters in body
Jun
23
comment how to redefine the `\\` in a tabular environment?
Could you please explain more about "...\let to a normal catcode token..." ?
Jun
23
asked how to redefine the `\\` in a tabular environment?
Jun
22
comment How to redefine commands and environments, and make them acceptable for `\write`
Your solution is very interesting (one can always learn a lot from your solutions...) but i think it is not suitable for my situation : i need to consider commands with optional arguments, and different number of arguments. On the other hand, i don't want these commands/environments to have the same effect. Some will write something like <bold>...</bold>, but some should do other things. This is why i would prefer to redefine them separately. For the moment, my solution works except for environments (i need in particular itemize)
Jun
22
asked How to redefine commands and environments, and make them acceptable for `\write`
Jun
22
asked how to create a fully-expandable environment
Jun
19
asked Long version of \edef, \xdef, \protected@edef
Jun
18
comment a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
is there a similar issue with environment with optional arguments ? Is there an equivalent of \newrobustcmd for environments ?
Jun
18
accepted a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
Jun
18
comment a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
Thanks a lot for the hints. Nevertheless, I don't understand your solution 1 : i thought that \protected@xdef would have a special effect (preventing expansion) on macro which are preceded by \protected in the edef, or defined with \protected. Did i miss something ?
Jun
18
comment a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
This is the problem with minimal examples ... they sometimes have not meaning. This one just illustrates a problem, that i encounter in my code (which has a meaning!)
Jun
18
comment a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
Could you please explain why one can not safely \edef a command with optional argument, but can do it without optional argument.
Jun
18
asked a “… doesn't match its definition” problem, that I don't understand
Jun
15
comment Can I redefine the dollar
Well, my question about how to cancel the effect, was just a subsidiary question, because to frightened me with "dangerous". But your answer is perfect for me. What i want to do : i want to export a tex document into some xml file. For this, i need to capture the maths formulas, a make \write of the \detokenize of the content of the math environment. With your catcode trick, it works.
Jun
15
comment Can I redefine the dollar
@egreg. I know, I can put the \catcode in a group, and this will have no effect outside. But if i don't, how can I cancel the effect of '\catcode`$=\active' later on in the document ? And for which reason did you put a \protected ?
Jun
15
asked Can I redefine the dollar
Jun
12
asked Can I define a macro with same name as an already defined command?
Jun
11
accepted Difficulty with \write