I was in correspondence with the author of a LaTeX package in which I volunteered code similar to the following (I have anonymised it so that it is not obvious what package):

        \csname saved@macro@state@named@#1\endcsname%
    \ifcsname saved@macro@state@named@#1\endcsname%
        \errmessage{Saved macro state named "#1" doesn't exist}%
        \csname saved@macro@state@named@#1\endcsname%

In their reply, one thing they said was that instead of writing #1 in your macros, you should write \detokenize{#1}, as it is safer. Why is it safer? What might go wrong if I don't?

  • If you're sure that #1 will always be replaced with a string of ASCII characters, there's no difference. – egreg Jan 18 '14 at 13:41
  • @egreg 'Sure' is a risky business ;-) – Joseph Wright Jan 18 '14 at 15:26
  • @JosephWright People who monkey with category codes are on their own. – egreg Jan 18 '14 at 15:39
  • @egreg User input can legitimately contain ~ or _ with the underscore package loaded :-) – Joseph Wright Jan 18 '14 at 15:57
  • @JosephWright Let's say non TeX special characters, then; I don't consider underscore that creates more problems than it solves. – egreg Jan 18 '14 at 16:00

If you have

\def!{\hspace{2in} \fbox{boo} \hspace{2in}}

then \csname foo!\endcsname is an error as the name doesn't expand to a sequence of character tokens, but \csname\detokenize{foo!}\endcsname is same as \csname foo\string!\endcsname and makes the token with name foo!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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