Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> there is again something fishy going on with supp-pdf.mkii: The following
> simple test document fails:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \newcommand{\undefined}{\textbf{undefined}}
> \begin{document}
> This is an \undefined\ command.
> \end{document}
>
> with
> (/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/supp-pdf.mkii
> ! Undefined control sequence.
> l.17 \writestatus
> {loading}{ConTeXt Support Macros / PDF}
>
>
> I assume it comes from supp-pdf.mkii testing
> \ifx\writestatus\undefined
>
> But \undefined is a completely valid TeX command. Mind that I am
> even using \newcommand here.
Well, let's say it is a perfectly valid command that you shouldn't
be defining. In non-etex mode, the only way to test for the existence
of a control sequence is by comparing it to an undefined one, and
Hans chose \undefined, and I don't think using a more bizarre one will
actually solve anything.
Best wishes,
Taco
--
libtommath ftbfs on all archs in lucid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/534293
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
