in many places, latex defines \par (usually via \everypar) to do a lot of non-obvious things, things which most ordinary users (and even some "experts") haven't investigated and aren't aware of. using \endgraf in these situations can lead to unexpected results.
some places where \par is much safer are
note that a blank line in these contexts is equivalent to \par, not \endgraf.
in certain situations, such as within a footnote in plain tex, \par isn't accepted, and \endgraf must be used instead. however, latex.ltx contains the line \let\endgraf=\par so i'm not really sure where \endgraf would be required in latex. (i've been corrupted sufficiently by long years of using plain tex that i sometimes get these things confused.)
\endgrafrather than\par? – barbara beeton Feb 05 '13 at 13:41\endgrafthan\parwhen the code might be used within the argument of a non-\longmacro. My question is to know why anyone would use\parrather than\endgraf, since I thought that the definition of the latter is\def\endgraf{\par}and as such most often behaves identically. David provides a case where\paris correct but not\endgraf. – Bruno Le Floch Feb 05 '13 at 18:53\endgrafis, of course,\let\endgraf\par. For some of us,\endgrafcomes to the mind from the old days of Plain TeX; it has to be the "primitive\par" or\let\par\endgrafwould pose some small problems.;-)And LaTeX uses it all the time in the form\let\par\@@par. You use\@@par(or\endgraf, the same) when you are sure you want the primitive meaning of\par. – egreg Feb 05 '13 at 21:08