Possible bug and typo in ltfssini.dtx

[aminophen]

First, sorry I cannot think of any MWE; but I think I spotted a typo and a possible bug in ltfssini.dtx. I will report them as follows, since the deadline 2020-10-01 is coming.

latex2e/base/ltfssini.dtx

Lines 803 to 819 in c7be0b9

	% If \cs{bfdefault} and \cs{befdefault@previous} are different then
	% the default got changed directly through the legacy interface
	% (i.e., via \cs{def} or \cs{renewcommand}. In that case we reset
	% all meta family defaults so that the document behaves like it was
	% the case before the new mechanism was introduced.
	% \changes{v3.1k}{2020/03/19}{Support legacy use of \cs{bfdefault}
	% and \cs{mddefault} (gh/306)}
	% \begin{macrocode}
	\ifx\bfdefault\bfdefault@previous\else
	% \end{macrocode}
	% We add \cs{@empty} and then let \cs{bfdefault@previous} to
	% \cs{bfdefault} so that we can detect any further change.
	% \begin{macrocode}
	\expandafter\def\expandafter\bfdefault
	\expandafter{\bfdefault\@empty}%
	\let\bfseries@previous\bfdefault
	% \end{macrocode}

• typo: l.803 \cs{befdefault@previous} should be \cs{bfdefault@previous}
• possible bug: l.818 \bfseries@previous appears but this is the only one occurrence of \bfseries@previous inside the latex.ltx; I guess it should be \bfdefault@previous.

Maybe related to #306?

[aminophen]

Similiar for \mdseries@previous: maybe \mddefault@previous?

[FrankMittelbach]

Hironobu Yamashita:

First, sorry I cannot think of any MWE; but I think I spotted a typo and a possible bug in ltfssini.dtx. I will report them as follows, since the deadline 2020-10-01 is coming.

difficult to come up with an MWE I agree (which is why it wasn't caught I guess) but clearly a bug and a typo

* typo: l.803 ***@***.***}| should be ***@***.***}| * possible bug: l.811 ***@***.***| appears but this is the only one occurrence of ***@***.***| inside the latex.ltx; I guess it should be ***@***.***|.

it is initialized in fonttext.ltx so it works the first time but not in the middle of a document (which is why the test we have didn't caught the error). thanks for reporting and spotting