There sure are lots of TeX-capable editors out there...

We have a frightening number of questions of the "LaTeX {Editor|IDE} that {does|runs on} X" variety. I wonder whether the best course of action is to close all of them and instead work on the Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_TeX_editors

The page covers what most questions are about (OS, autocompletion, inverse search. easy symbols insertion and whatnot)

@Caramdir Did anyone lose reputation due to making the answer CW? I thought users just don't gain any more rep after the post is made CW!

@MartinTapankov We'd need a 'it's on Wikipedia' close reason. I'd prefer if tex.stackexchange.com/questions/339/latex-editors-ides is improved with the relevant info. Then we can close as a duplicate of that. (I did add a link to Wikipedia in the comments, but it is hidden by default).

@HendrikVogt You are right, it seems like the users kept their reputation (at least for the moment, not sure what a rep recalc does to that case).

Can anyone check whether this is a siunitx bug in the latest release: \num[round-mode=figures,round-precision=3]{59.99999} prints "510" for me... I have 2.1f

@Seamus: I get the same with 2.1o

@Jake. OK thanks. I might file a bug report, or I could just wait until Joseph comes to chat.

@JosephWright We found a bug in siunitx \num[round-mode=figures,round-precision=3]{59.99999} prints "510". Tested with`2.1f` and 2.1o

Does anyone have a 2.2 version of siunitx to test? Or maybe I should update...

@Seamus, @JosephWright: Also happens with 2.2e. It seems to be a problem when rounding with figures leads to an increase in the "10" digit: \num[round-mode=figures]{19.6} -> 210, but \num[round-mode=figures]{9.6} -> correctly 9.6, and \num[round-mode=places]{19.6} -> correctly 19.60.

xport vs. lockstep is currently 11:6 on the front page :)

@Caramdir haha let the bloodshed begin. :P