[texhax] Trying to find if a listing is continued with listings package

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Wed Dec 23 05:51:27 CET 2015

On 2015-12-22 at 07:33:50 +0000, Philip Taylor wrote:

> Reinhard Kotucha wrote:

 > > It's much safer if LaTeX users use LaTeX code exclusively.
 > Yes, I agree. In fact, I often think life would be a /very/ great deal
 > simpler if the TeX/LaTeX confusion that currently exists could be done
 > away with completely -- it does not help that lists such as TeXhax,
 > Usenet newsgroups such as Comp.Text.TeX and fora such as
 > TeX.Stackexchange allow (nay, positively encourage) discussions
 > concerning LaTeX.  Separate lists/newsgroups/fora (LaTeXhax,
 > Comp.Text.LaTeX, LaTeX.Stackexchange, etc) need to created to host such
 > discussions, allowing those of us who want to ask questions about TeX to
 > get TeX-related answers and not (as is only too often the case)
 > LaTeX-related answers from those who do not understand the difference.
 > The situation is analogous to that of the JavaScript world, where one
 > asks a question about JavaScript but 90% of the answers assume that
 > JQuery is really the Universe of Discourse.

In almost all cases you can deduce from the question whether it's
about plain TeX or LaTeX.  And if it's unclear you can always ask.

It's a matter of fact that the experts are familiar with both, plain
TeX and LaTeX.  But if there are separate trees, I fear that nobody
(maybe except you) looks into the plain TeX tree.

 > And if \csname ... \endcsname is being used in the context of a
 > test, then one can (should) use \ifcsname ... \fi, which adds
 > nothing to the hash table if the <csname> does not exist.

This is a good point, Phil.

LaTeX formats are created with e-TeX support for about a decade but
LaTeX-2e is much older.  I'm not sure whether one can re-define
\@ifundefined without breaking existing code.

LaTeX-3 is obviously using \ifcsname already.

 > > Phil, we discussed this issue a few years ago and you forwarded a 
 > > mail from someone who explained *why* TeX cannot remove unused 
 > > csnames from the hash table.  Unfortunately I can't find this mail 
 > > anymore.  Do you remember it and can you forward it to me again?
 > It may have been in this thread :
 > 	https://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/2006-September/006871.html

No, I encountered the problem in 2008 or 2009, hence the discussion
I have in mind happened much later.

But don't worry, enjoy Xmas.

Best regards, also to Le Khanh,

Reinhard Kotucha                            Phone: +49-511-3373112
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover                    mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de

More information about the texhax mailing list