add extra meaning test for #1448

[davidcarlisle]

Status of pull request

• Ready to merge

Checklist of required changes before merge will be approved

• [X] Test file(s) added
• [X] Version and date string updated in changed source files
• [X] Relevant \changes entries in source included
• [X] Relevant changes.txt updated
• [ ] Rollback provided (if necessary)?
• [ ] ltnewsX.tex (and/or latexchanges.tex) updated

No rollback or news as this is an addition to the \protect test that's only been released in latex-dev.

It implements the small addition previously posted to #1448

As noted in the issue a better fix would be to f-expand the token stream before testing so removing any macros and if tokens, which would simplify the testing, allowing dropping the \meaning tests for long and protected macros, but the code for that is not quite ready and would have no time for testing for this release, so this is a small addition, just addressing the speciic issue raised.

We can introduce a more complete update for a latex-dev release later.

[josephwright]

Test file?

[davidcarlisle]

Test file?

I have one I suppose you want me to git add it :-)

[josephwright]

Test file?

I have one I suppose you want me to git add it :-)

Er, needs to pass ;)

[FrankMittelbach]

ah, and one more comment ... I suggest you make a new issue for updating this to f-expansion and plan it for 2025 spring so that it is on the schedule

[josephwright]

@davidcarlisle I see what you mean about normalisation - I might look at that later today

[FrankMittelbach]

what's the cause of the failures?

[u-fischer]

what's the cause of the failures?

there is % missing on line 1005 in amsmath.dtx

[davidcarlisle]

what's the cause of the failures?

looked like i messed up the macrocode markup while adding the requested documentation line :(

[josephwright]

Good to go now?

[FrankMittelbach]

Good to go now?

looks like it