Mdthbs

Why do some academic journals requires a separate "summary" paragraph in addition to an abstract?

Chord with lyrics - What does it mean if there is an empty space instead of a Chord?

Unbiased estimator of exponential of measure of a set?

Are there categories whose internal hom is somewhat 'exotic'?

Convert HTML color to OLE

Are required indicators necessary for radio buttons?

What can I do to keep a threaded bolt from falling out of it’s slot

Can a Beast Master ranger choose a swarm as an animal companion?

Chess software to analyze games

Is there a commercial liquid with refractive index greater than n=2?

Why don't politicians push for fossil fuel reduction by pointing out their scarcity?

Are illustrations in novels frowned upon?

Earliest evidence of objects intended for future archaeologists?

!I!n!s!e!r!t! !n!b!e!t!w!e!e!n!

What happens when two creatures actually share the same turn?

How to create a summation symbol with a vertical bar?

My two team members in a remote location don't get along with each other; how can I improve working relations?

How did Apollo 15's depressurization work?

How to think about joining a company whose business I do not understand?

How to decide whether an eshop is safe or compromised

How do you call it when two celestial bodies come as close to each other as they will in their current orbits?

How to detect a failed AES256 decryption programmatically?

Does C++20 mandate source code being stored in files?

I think my coworker went through my notebook and took my project ideas

global variant of csname…endcsname

What exactly do csname and endcsname do?global confusionWhat causes the difference appearance by the useages of two “csname…endcsname”?Defining parametric commands - issue with nested csnameExpansion rules for csname/endcsname inside edefNon-alphabet letter in csname …endcsnameUse let with csnameWhat is the difference between somecmd and csname somecmdendcsname?Isn't csname fooendcsname = foo?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

11

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

The resulting log file contains an entry {retaining testB=macro:->blubb}, but no corresponding entry for testA. As far as I understand TeX, this means that csname...endcsname defines the macro testA as relax locally, which I immediately after reassign globally as "blubb", which, in turn, adds an retaining-entry on my save_stack.

In my real-world application, i need to be able to define a potentially infinite number of individually named macros using csname-constructions, which now has lead to a stack overflow because of this. (well, maybe not infinite, but definitely more than 80000s…)

My question now is: Is there a way to initialize a csname…endcsname-construct globally to avoid them being stacked on the save-stack? Or some kind of workaround which keeps my save-stack clean?

tex-core grouping csname

share|improve this question

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  luatex a possibility?
  
  – David Carlisle
  Aug 16 at 16:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  why are you defining so many global variables in a local context?
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  Aug 16 at 16:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  xmltex… in a nutshell i'm reading the information from style- and class attributes in html tables and store that information in control sequences to render them later after some calculations and processing. For each cell. Individually.... And we have books that consist only of tables… And no, luatex is not an option: too slow for professional typesetting.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 16:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I still don't see why this should means that you need groups. Also it sounds as if you would gain a lot by using lua to do the processing.
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  Aug 16 at 17:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @UlrikeFischer As I said, lua(la)tex is not an option. Unfortunately… (and neither is xelatex, pdflatex, and anything other than latex with dvi output and xmltex). Besides, everything works perfectly well within tex: calculating, processing, and rendering. It is just that the "feature" described in the OP prevents scaling: If the tables are too long, TeX bites the dust with a "memory exceeded"-error.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:23
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

11

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

The resulting log file contains an entry {retaining testB=macro:->blubb}, but no corresponding entry for testA. As far as I understand TeX, this means that csname...endcsname defines the macro testA as relax locally, which I immediately after reassign globally as "blubb", which, in turn, adds an retaining-entry on my save_stack.

In my real-world application, i need to be able to define a potentially infinite number of individually named macros using csname-constructions, which now has lead to a stack overflow because of this. (well, maybe not infinite, but definitely more than 80000s…)

My question now is: Is there a way to initialize a csname…endcsname-construct globally to avoid them being stacked on the save-stack? Or some kind of workaround which keeps my save-stack clean?

tex-core grouping csname

share|improve this question

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  luatex a possibility?
  
  – David Carlisle
  Aug 16 at 16:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  why are you defining so many global variables in a local context?
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  Aug 16 at 16:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  xmltex… in a nutshell i'm reading the information from style- and class attributes in html tables and store that information in control sequences to render them later after some calculations and processing. For each cell. Individually.... And we have books that consist only of tables… And no, luatex is not an option: too slow for professional typesetting.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 16:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I still don't see why this should means that you need groups. Also it sounds as if you would gain a lot by using lua to do the processing.
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  Aug 16 at 17:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @UlrikeFischer As I said, lua(la)tex is not an option. Unfortunately… (and neither is xelatex, pdflatex, and anything other than latex with dvi output and xmltex). Besides, everything works perfectly well within tex: calculating, processing, and rendering. It is just that the "feature" described in the OP prevents scaling: If the tables are too long, TeX bites the dust with a "memory exceeded"-error.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:23
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

The resulting log file contains an entry {retaining testB=macro:->blubb}, but no corresponding entry for testA. As far as I understand TeX, this means that csname...endcsname defines the macro testA as relax locally, which I immediately after reassign globally as "blubb", which, in turn, adds an retaining-entry on my save_stack.

In my real-world application, i need to be able to define a potentially infinite number of individually named macros using csname-constructions, which now has lead to a stack overflow because of this. (well, maybe not infinite, but definitely more than 80000s…)

My question now is: Is there a way to initialize a csname…endcsname-construct globally to avoid them being stacked on the save-stack? Or some kind of workaround which keeps my save-stack clean?

tex-core grouping csname

share|improve this question

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this question

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

asked Aug 16 at 16:14

LupinoLupino

1,30577 silver badges1212 bronze badges

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

16

Instead of making the csname assignment global, you can make it even more local:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

Now the expandafter is executed in a group, so the csname defined testB to relax in a group which ends before gdef starts. So testB is undefined when the global definition occurs which should avoid the retaining entry.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:33
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This is absolutely genius! This allows to have a fully-expandable ifcsname test without e-TeX using begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandafterifxcsname fooendcsnameundefined. Bounty will be offered when eligible.
  
  – Henri Menke
  2 days ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @HenriMenke Heiko uses this quite a bit in his packages too, but it's not really fully expandable, it leaves begingroupendgroup before the test (so you can't use it at start of a table cell without preventing omit etc)
  
  – David Carlisle
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

I don't know squat about (La)TeX stacks (other than stackengine, LOL), but if the goal is to avoid having the csname inside a def...

Expand the csname before executing the outer def.

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  good trick, but I expect that's cheating, as the OP would probably need 80000 top level instances of that in the stated use case. (+1anyway:-)
  
  – David Carlisle
  Aug 16 at 16:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Gaining that extra-level of depth (height?), actually helps for most of my cases, but not for all :/ Am I assuming correctly that i would need one level of expandafter for each "layer" of embeded macro? That woudl be bad, because foo could itself be embedded in another macro, or not. And since I'm using (forced to use) xmltex, i probably never will reach "real" top-level with that method… Thanks anyways for the quick reply.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 16:51
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino As I said, I don't profess to understand what is under TeX's hood, such as stacks. However, if the csname is the issue, you would not need additional layers of expandafter...only on the layer employing the csname. If, on the other hand, the issue is one of def vs. gdef, then I am not sure. But if David thinks I am cheating, I probably am.
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbaz{expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}} and later {bazfoo} i would need to extend the expandafters outwards to defbaz to raise the csname to the same level as my call to testB, otherwise i have the same problem as before…
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:16
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f504501%2fglobal-variant-of-csname-endcsname%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

16

Instead of making the csname assignment global, you can make it even more local:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

Now the expandafter is executed in a group, so the csname defined testB to relax in a group which ends before gdef starts. So testB is undefined when the global definition occurs which should avoid the retaining entry.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:33
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This is absolutely genius! This allows to have a fully-expandable ifcsname test without e-TeX using begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandafterifxcsname fooendcsnameundefined. Bounty will be offered when eligible.
  
  – Henri Menke
  2 days ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @HenriMenke Heiko uses this quite a bit in his packages too, but it's not really fully expandable, it leaves begingroupendgroup before the test (so you can't use it at start of a table cell without preventing omit etc)
  
  – David Carlisle
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

16

Instead of making the csname assignment global, you can make it even more local:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

Now the expandafter is executed in a group, so the csname defined testB to relax in a group which ends before gdef starts. So testB is undefined when the global definition occurs which should avoid the retaining entry.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:33
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This is absolutely genius! This allows to have a fully-expandable ifcsname test without e-TeX using begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandafterifxcsname fooendcsnameundefined. Bounty will be offered when eligible.
  
  – Henri Menke
  2 days ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @HenriMenke Heiko uses this quite a bit in his packages too, but it's not really fully expandable, it leaves begingroupendgroup before the test (so you can't use it at start of a table cell without preventing omit etc)
  
  – David Carlisle
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Instead of making the csname assignment global, you can make it even more local:

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

Now the expandafter is executed in a group, so the csname defined testB to relax in a group which ends before gdef starts. So testB is undefined when the global definition occurs which should avoid the retaining entry.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

deffoobar{begingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

answered Aug 16 at 17:12

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.3k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

8

I don't know squat about (La)TeX stacks (other than stackengine, LOL), but if the goal is to avoid having the csname inside a def...

Expand the csname before executing the outer def.

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  good trick, but I expect that's cheating, as the OP would probably need 80000 top level instances of that in the stated use case. (+1anyway:-)
  
  – David Carlisle
  Aug 16 at 16:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Gaining that extra-level of depth (height?), actually helps for most of my cases, but not for all :/ Am I assuming correctly that i would need one level of expandafter for each "layer" of embeded macro? That woudl be bad, because foo could itself be embedded in another macro, or not. And since I'm using (forced to use) xmltex, i probably never will reach "real" top-level with that method… Thanks anyways for the quick reply.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 16:51
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino As I said, I don't profess to understand what is under TeX's hood, such as stacks. However, if the csname is the issue, you would not need additional layers of expandafter...only on the layer employing the csname. If, on the other hand, the issue is one of def vs. gdef, then I am not sure. But if David thinks I am cheating, I probably am.
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbaz{expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}} and later {bazfoo} i would need to extend the expandafters outwards to defbaz to raise the csname to the same level as my call to testB, otherwise i have the same problem as before…
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:16
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

I don't know squat about (La)TeX stacks (other than stackengine, LOL), but if the goal is to avoid having the csname inside a def...

Expand the csname before executing the outer def.

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  good trick, but I expect that's cheating, as the OP would probably need 80000 top level instances of that in the stated use case. (+1anyway:-)
  
  – David Carlisle
  Aug 16 at 16:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Gaining that extra-level of depth (height?), actually helps for most of my cases, but not for all :/ Am I assuming correctly that i would need one level of expandafter for each "layer" of embeded macro? That woudl be bad, because foo could itself be embedded in another macro, or not. And since I'm using (forced to use) xmltex, i probably never will reach "real" top-level with that method… Thanks anyways for the quick reply.
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 16:51
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino As I said, I don't profess to understand what is under TeX's hood, such as stacks. However, if the csname is the issue, you would not need additional layers of expandafter...only on the layer employing the csname. If, on the other hand, the issue is one of def vs. gdef, then I am not sure. But if David thinks I am cheating, I probably am.
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  Aug 16 at 17:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbaz{expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}} and later {bazfoo} i would need to extend the expandafters outwards to defbaz to raise the csname to the same level as my call to testB, otherwise i have the same problem as before…
  
  – Lupino
  Aug 16 at 17:16
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

I don't know squat about (La)TeX stacks (other than stackengine, LOL), but if the goal is to avoid having the csname inside a def...

Expand the csname before executing the outer def.

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

documentclass{article}

tracingrestores=1



deffoo{barfoobar}

defbar{gdeftestA{blabb}}

expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafter{expandaftergdefcsname testBendcsname{blubb}}



begin{document}

{foo}



testA

testB



end{document}

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges

answered Aug 16 at 16:22

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges436436 bronze badges