@Rmano This is why I recetly started to comment to "How to TikZ this?" questions that this site is not meant to be a human-powered image-to-TikZ conversion tool. But of course, it does not change anything =D
@Petəíŕd The Spring Wizard I think, LaTeX has a large German user community, which probably explains that there are quite a few Germans on this site. But I think that this site is really very international.
Under biblatex \cite[45]{key} and \cite[45f]{key} gives different results. The former adds p. 45 the latter just 45f. Does anyone know how it tells the difference and is it configurable?
@daleif I think, this abbreviation comes from Latin: f > foliō (on the [next] page), same for p (since we use this in German as well, but there is no word starting with p in German to denote a page). (But in German f could also mean "folgende", so I am really not sure =D )
@JasperHabicht Makes sense. I have a student who is handing in their Master thesis tomorrow. And this difference in typesetting is their last item to fix. They'd either like all of them to have the page specifier, or none of them. Preferable without having to manually fix the entire thesis. I'm just not sure that is possible.
Ahh, \DeclareFieldFormat{postnote}{#1} seems to do the thing
@DavidCarlisle regarding the discussion after afterpage some weeks ago. Do we these days have a good solution for this question: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/575067/… which comes up from time to time.
I've solved it in one case using a recursice macro that uses \afterpage, just not sure is we have better solutions these days.
@JosephWright regarding github.com/latex3/latex3/issues/1541: Is there something I don't get? Is there any behavioural difference I overlook between using \exp_args:NNx \tl_set:Nn and using \edef (except for the latter being considerable faster)?
@daleif I had a quick look at the question but isn't it just a matter of setting a \pagestyle for the frontmatter (and arranging the table fo contents macros don't undo that?)