The difference is in the time at which the ‘right hand side’ is evaluated.
Thus \let\foo\bar defines \foo to have the value that \bar had at the point of definition. On the other hand, \def\foo{\bar} in effect defines \foo to have the value that \bar has at the point of use.
Consider:
\def\bar{hello}
\let\fooi\bar
\def\fooii{\bar}
\fooi +\fooii
\def\bar{goodbye}
\fooi +\fooii
This produces
hello+hello
hello+goodbye
This is a simple process.
However it's also a subtle one, so it might be worth highlighting a few key points:
When TeX encounters control sequences such as \fooi, it evaluates them; if these are macros (that is, they have been defined by \def, or \let equal to something which was defined by \def), then the result is that they will expand to other tokens, which TeX will then examine in turn, and so on, recursively, until what's left is either ‘primitive’ control sequences or letters (I'm simplifying a little bit).
\fooi expands directly to the characters hello (because \bar initially did, and \fooi was defined to have the same value).
\fooii, in contrast, expands to \bar, which is then immediately reexamined and reexpanded. In the first case, \bar expands to hello and in the second case to goodbye. The definition of \fooii hasn't changed, but \bar has been redefined in between.
Getting a clear idea of the process of this recursive expansion is very helpful when learning how to develop and debug TeX macros.
\edef expands the argument, whereas \let doesn't. Here is an example to illustrate the difference:
\def\txt{a}
\def\foo{\txt}
\let\bar\foo
\bar -> a
\def\txt{b}
\bar -> b
However,
\def\txt{a}
\def\foo{\txt}
\edef\bar{\foo}
\bar -> a
\def\txt{b}
\bar -> a
There are also other differences, say, the arguments and so on. But how to expansion may be the most important(?).
This is an interesting question. May I expand the question further more?
What is the difference between \let and \expandafter\def\expandafter\foo\expandafter ? Do they always behave the same?
\def\txt{bar}
\def\foo{\txt}
\expandafter\def\expandafter\bar\expandafter{\foo}
\let\BAR\foo
{\tt \string\bar = \meaning\bar}\par
{\tt \string\BAR = \meaning\bar}
Sneaky inline answer to this rhetorical question, since I wrote the original question :)
If you are doing this on macros that take no arguments, then the difference between them is negligible. OTOH, you cannot use the \expandafter\def... construct if you're trying to copy the definition of a macro that takes arguments.
In fact, this brings to light one of the aspects that I was hoping people would discuss here. \let creates a literal copy of a macro at the instant that it is executed, whereas \edef will take the contents of the macro and expand it recursively to create a new macro entirely. When you are only using the macros as places to store data (such as \def\name{Will}) then the differences are largely inconsequential, but when the macros are being used as ‘functions’ that take arguments or have contents that have various expansion restrictions applied to it (with \protected, \noexpand, and so on) then the differences can be very important indeed.
Best Answer
Of course, they have different syntax.
\ifx\cyrdash\undefinedis traditional way to test if a macro is undefined. Of course,\undefinedsould not be defined.There are
\ifdefinedand\ifcsnameprimitives in eTeX. They have no other side effects.LaTeX's
\@ifundefinedtest if a macro is defined or it has the same meaning of\relax. Furthermore,\@ifundefined{undefinedfoo}{...}{...}will makes\undefinedfooto be\relax.Normally, there is no difference between
and
eTeX primitives may be a little safer. Say, we don't need to worry about whether
\undefinedis really undefined.However, these two usage are different:
and
In fact,
\csname undefined\endcsnamemakes\undefinedto be\relax, while\ifcsname undefined\endcsnamemakes\undefinedunchanged. That's why\ifcsnamein eTeX is necessary.Test code: