Sorry for the newspaper headline title :P

I have a document in which I (ab)use LaTeX's control structures, namely \@for. Naturally, the contents of some of these loops contain \par agraph breaks.

I added \usepackage{pstricks} to my document and I got tons of Runaway arguments. \tracingall here and there, and I reduced the problem to this MWE:


% \usepackage{pstricks}


A long text with \el\par or not so long after all\dots\par}


Once you uncomment \usepackage{pstricks} TeX throws an error saying that Paragraph ended before \@fornoop was complete.

On line 90 of pstricks.tex one finds:

% stolen from latex.ltx to make it TeX compatible

while the LaTeX kernel has:


Why does PSTricks doesn't define \@fornoop as \long? Is this intended or a bug? If it is intended, then why?

  • Which compiler do you use with pstricks? – Bernard Apr 30 '18 at 22:56
  • @Bernard I was compiling with pdfLaTeX. To be honest I didn't try other compilers as I thought it would be irrelevant because this doesn't seem to be a compiler dependent issue. – Phelype Oleinik May 1 '18 at 0:29
  • Witpdflatex, did you think of loading auto-pst-pdf (after pstricks) and enabling -shell-escape? Without it, you can compile with xelatex. – Bernard May 1 '18 at 0:33
  • @Bernard Actually, the problem arised when I loaded both psvectorian (which loads pstricks) thenauto-pst-pdf, so no that doesn't help, neither does xelatex (I tried just now). Solving the problem is quite easy, just copy the LaTeX definition of \@fornoop after pstricks, or load Nicola Talbot's xfor. My question was more if this is an expected behavior. Thanks anyway :) – Phelype Oleinik May 1 '18 at 0:52
  • 2
    should be fixed with next update ... – user2478 May 2 '18 at 9:39

If you look at the documented sources of LaTeX you will see that making that \long is a "recent" change and pstricks would have copied an older version and not yet caught up

% \changes{v1.0g}{1995/08/16}{Made defs long}
% \changes{v1.0h}{2007/08/06}{Really make defs long}
%    \begin{macrocode}
  • 2
    Loading xfor after pstricks might help. xfor was written before that change and one of the reasons for writing it was to patch \@for to make it long. – Nicola Talbot Apr 30 '18 at 23:38
  • Hmm... Makes sense. Should I report this to the maintainer of PSTricks? (It's Herbert, right?) – Phelype Oleinik May 1 '18 at 0:32
  • 1
    @NicolaTalbot xfor not only solves this issue, but it solves far too many problems I had before with loops. Thanks for the tip :) – Phelype Oleinik May 1 '18 at 0:34

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.