Thanks for the detailed explanations. > > in the exmaple i showed, changing the amcode will make it unprotected > but i assume you checked that already
Yes, setting the amcode to zero (in a local context -sic) solved my problem. Which is why I asked if that was considered a stable feature of context. > > and indeed, unprotected control sequences are not implemented as in etex > (or luatex or ...) but are real commands, so no magic macro body > prefixing (idem for \tolerant and some combinations) > > from the various documentation you can deduce that luametatex has a more > extensive and granular way of dealing with these matters (some come at a > cost in performance but that is gained back on optimizations elsehere) I am beginning to realize the differences with my routine past life are much more extensive I would have expected. > > also keep in mind that when overload protection is enabled you can't > even redefine ~ as it's a \permanent one in context Good to know, thanks. This would break the usage I had in mind, but I can take this as fact of life. The real life is nothing fancy, but the sole natively active character in TeX in ascii range 32-127 being the ~ , it presented itself readily for some matters, and I was aiming at re-using code as is in context. ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror) archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
