### Is this command defined?

Macro sets from the earliest days of TeX programming may be observed to test whether commands exist by using

> `\``ifx` csx`command` `\``undefined` <stuff> ...

(which of course actually tests that the command doesn’t exist). LaTeX programmers can make use of the internal command

> `\``@ifundefined{`cmd name`}{`action1`}{`action2`}`

which executes `action1` if the command is undefined, and `action2` if it is defined (cmd name is the command name only, omitting the ‘`\`’ character).

The `\``@ifundefined` command is based on the sequence

>     \expandafter \ifx \csname cmd name\endcsname \relax

which relies on the way `\``csname` works: if the command doesn’t exist, it simply creates it as an alias for `\``relax`.

So: what is wrong with these techniques?

Using `\``undefined` blithely assumes that the command is indeed not defined. This isn’t entirely safe; one could make the name more improbable, but that may simply make it more difficult to spot a problem when things go wrong. LaTeX programmers who use the technique will typically employ `\``@undefined`, adding a single level of obscurity.

The `\``@ifundefined` mechanism has the unfortunate property of polluting the name space: each test that turns out undefined adds a name to the set TeX is holding, and often all those “`\``relax`” names serve no purpose whatever. Even so (sadly) there are places in the code of LaTeX where the existence of the `\``relax` is relied upon, after the test, so we can’t get away from `\``@ifundefined` altogether.

David Kastrup offers the (rather tricky)

>     {\expandafter}\expandafter\ifx \csname cmd name\endcsname\relax ...

which “creates” the `\``relax`-command inside the group of the first `\``expandafter`, therefore forgets it again once the test is done. The test is about as good as you can do with macros.

The e-TeX system system comes to our help here: it defines two new primitives:

- `\``ifdefined`, which tests whether a thing is defined (the negative of comparing with `\``undefined`, as it were), and
- `\``ifcsname` `cmd name``\``endcsname`, which does the negative of `\``@ifundefined` without the `\``relax`-command side-effect.

So, in an e-TeX-based system, the following two conditional clauses do the same thing:

>     \ifdefined\foo
>       \message{\string\foo\space is defined}%
>     \else
>       \message{no command \string\foo}%
>     \fi
>     %
>     \ifcsname foo\endcsname
>       \message{\string\foo\space is defined}%
>     \else
>       \message{no command \string\foo}%
>     \fi

However, after using the LaTeX `\``@ifundefined{foo}`..., the conditionals will detect the command as “existing” (since it has been `\``let` to `\``relax`); so it is important not to mix mechanisms for detecting the state of a command.

Since most distributions nowadays use e-TeX as their base executable for most packages, these two primitives may be expected appear widely in new macro packages.

This question on the Web: http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=isdef