Thanks for the stress test! You are absolutely right, and I really appreciate you catching this edge case.
I've traced the issue in the codebase:
1. The recursion depth limit *is* triggering correctly (preventing an infinite loop).
2. However, when it bails out, it returns the partially expanded macro call (e.g., `\foo{x}`).
3. Since the macro definition was removed during the preprocessing step, the parser then sees `\foo` as an unknown command and converts it into an error comment, accidentally discarding the argument `{x}` in the process.
*The intended behavior* should definitely be to preserve the content (the `x`) even if the macro logic fails. I will fix the fallback logic to ensure it fails gracefully without eating the arguments.
Thanks again for the sharp eye! These kinds of checks are super helpful.
I've traced the issue in the codebase: 1. The recursion depth limit *is* triggering correctly (preventing an infinite loop). 2. However, when it bails out, it returns the partially expanded macro call (e.g., `\foo{x}`). 3. Since the macro definition was removed during the preprocessing step, the parser then sees `\foo` as an unknown command and converts it into an error comment, accidentally discarding the argument `{x}` in the process.
*The intended behavior* should definitely be to preserve the content (the `x`) even if the macro logic fails. I will fix the fallback logic to ensure it fails gracefully without eating the arguments.
Thanks again for the sharp eye! These kinds of checks are super helpful.