Mfcttrf

Did Michelle Obama have a staff of 23; and Melania have a staff of 4?

What allows us to use imaginary numbers?

How would armour (and combat) change if the fighter didn't need to actually wear it?

What are these panels underneath the wing root of a A380?

Setting up a Mathematical Institute of Refereeing?

Is Fourier series a sampled version of Fourier transform?

When does The Truman Show take place?

How can I enter recovery mode (for Mac OS, on an iMac) remotely?

Does writing regular diary entries count as writing practice?

What modifiers are added to the attack and damage rolls of this unique longbow from Waterdeep: Dragon Heist?

How do ultra-stable oscillators for spacecraft work?

How does the Moon's gravity affect Earth's oceans despite Earth's stronger gravitational pull?

Have there ever been other TV shows or Films that told a similiar story to the new 90210 show?

Output the list of musical notes

Is a USB 3.0 device possible with a four contact USB 2.0 connector?

Does the Haste spell's hasted action allow you to make multiple unarmed strikes? Or none at all?

How to train a replacement without them knowing?

What is the fastest way to level past 95 in Diablo II?

Has the speed of light ever been measured in vacuum?

What if a restaurant suddenly cannot accept credit cards, and the customer has no cash?

Why does "auf der Strecke bleiben" mean "to fall by the wayside"?

What's the point of writing that I know will never be used or read?

6502: is BCD *fundamentally* the same performance as non-BCD?

Is this bar slide trick shown on Cheers real or a visual effect?

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;

9

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  luatex a possibility?
  
  – David Carlisle
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  why are you defining so many global variables in a local context?
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

9

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  luatex a possibility?
  
  – David Carlisle
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  why are you defining so many global variables in a local context?
  
  – Ulrike Fischer
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

Please consider the following minimal example:

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this question

asked 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

asked 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

asked 8 hours ago

LupinoLupino

1,29577 silver badges1111 bronze badges

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

12

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

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarbegingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

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.

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbazexpandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb 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
  7 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

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

12

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

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarbegingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

12

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

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarbegingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I dont quite understand why this is working, but it works. Thanks.
  
  – Lupino
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Masterful! +1!!
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

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

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarbegingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

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 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
deffoobarbegingroupexpandafterendgroupexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

answered 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

answered 7 hours ago

Marcel KrügerMarcel Krüger

15.1k11 gold badge1818 silver badges3838 bronze badges

6

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.

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbazexpandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb 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
  7 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

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.

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Lupino The key would be if you can think of a problem case that uses no csnames...
  
  – Steven B. Segletes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @StevenB.Segletes If i use defbazexpandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb 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
  7 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

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.

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 bronze badges

documentclassarticle
tracingrestores=1

deffoobarfoobar
defbargdeftestAblabb
expandafterdefexpandafterfoobarexpandafterexpandaftergdefcsname testBendcsnameblubb

begindocument
foo

testA
testB

enddocument

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 bronze badges

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 bronze badges

answered 8 hours ago

Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes

168k99 gold badges214214 silver badges435435 bronze badges