@CarLaTeX perhaps I could come to appreciate Monty Python. But he makes me laugh nevertheless... Also he pushed me to re-read Appendix G and extract useful information, that is good
@DavidCarlisle thanks master! to be honest I'm looking forward to the next time I'll be able to be useful around here. Should come in about 15 to 20 years I guess
@DavidCarlisle Tonight I'll read it. But without a purpose (and also, without having clear what is written in the 22 that are before it) it's less fun. Also I have to pause Hobbes and Nietzsche to do so... I hope it's worth it
@DavidCarlisle Nearly done with dvipdfmx.def suggestions: I want to cover image caching yet, but first need to move the scaling stuff away as that won't work (needs to scale using a pdftex.def-like approach). Also, I have a feeling the bbox stuff needs adjustment: only EPS files can have a bbox that doesn't start at (0,0)!
@DavidCarlisle Probably will land before the team meeting (@egreg too I guess, but DPC is the graphics expert)
@DavidCarlisle Oh lord. Now I was in my second or third reading of chapter 12, glues... I'm not that familiar with anything actually... especially the 4 modes, so I don't know whether I'll be able to get dirty tricks, not understanding clean ones :)
but I'll give it a chance
Is the "low quality based on content length" automated?
New mathtools release sent of to CTAN. Hope I did not break too many existing documents. Had to steal a few macros from etoolbox in order to make sure \abs[] was still in the non-scaled wrapper branch (\DeclarePairedDelimiter). I also cleaned up at bit, so now \DeclarePairedDelimiterX is simply the same as \DeclarePairedDelimiterXPP with empty pre- and postcode.
@Moriambar The boring way: split it into three branches: Auto scale, nonscaled which now use \mathclose<fence> and scaled which uses \mathclose{<scaled fence>}. Having to go into font details was a bit too much for this.
@daleif oh, I see. i will gladly use it just to see how it works. I know I had no part in this, but I consider it my turning point in my TeX/LaTeX studies
@JosephWright as egreg says I think it's so \hat{P}_1 gets the subscript of P_1 not {P{}}_1 but it would have been better if the internal math atome re-organisation hadn't affected the allowable user syntax
A candlestick chart (also called Japanese candlestick chart) is a style of financial chart used to describe price movements of a security, derivative, or currency. Each "candlestick" typically shows one day; so for example a one-month chart may show the 20 trading days as 20 "candlesticks".
It is like a combination of line-chart and a bar-chart: each bar represents all four important pieces of information for that day: the open, the close, the high and the low. Being densely packed with information, they tend to represent trading patterns over short periods of time, often a few days or a few trading...
@Moriambar -- hmmm. that comment implies that there's a pdf file of the texbook online somewhere. that's frowned on. would you care to let me know (via mail to tugboat@tug.org) where you found it?
@daleif -- do you know whether the new mathtools will make it into tex live? i thought that was frozen already.
@JosephWright -- my guess as to why dek did anything is because it sufficed for what he needed. if a counterexample (or qualifying example) had been presented to him early enough in the game, he might well have modified the program to handle it. i have firsthand documentary evidence that he did that at least once. (a written note in the very first tex manual that he made a change based on an example i showed him -- introduction of \firstmark.)
@DavidCarlisle csquotes already defers the activation. And it does a lot of initialization at begin document. \AtBeginDocument{\MakeAutoQuote{>}{<}}before csquotes would work.
@UlrikeFischer aha I guessed it was that something else was stacking things in atbegindocument. I wonder if that's worth an answer (it can be easier than re-arranging the package loading in some contexts)
But it doesn't avoid the error in the question. The activation is nevertheless earlier than whatever else is loaded in \AtBeginDocument and then clashes with the active <. But as imho it is madness anyway to use < it didn't try to find out what exactly clash.
@DavidCarlisle Well with luatex you can naturally always reset the complete catcode table to something sane before reading a file. Probably it is not a bad idea to simply do it always anyway.
You may prefer the character from the tt font:
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
\texttt{Samp\_Dist\_Corr}
\verb|Samp_Dist_Corr|
\texttt{Samp\char`_Dist\char`_Corr}
\end{document}
Or probably better add \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} then all the above forms will use the character from...
@DavidCarlisle oh I see. Basically ~4000 of my 5000 rep comes from almost trivial, not very good and sometimes misleading answers :) Good answers almost never get upvoted :P
@DavidCarlisle I tried your method, but I think it's best to re-read at least through chapter 15 before dealing with chapter 23 (and possibly more to even become to understand appendix D)
@DavidCarlisle -- it's hard for me to say ... when i first read the texbook, i started with the copyright page. but since i was the source of some of the examples in appendix d, my advice is to not miss that! (maybe read the descriptions of what's intended, but leave trying to understand the code until more of the earlier chapters is firmly in your head.) actually, starting with the index is probably even better.
@DavidCarlisle the problem is that appendix D gives some concepts and macros for granted, so it's easy to misunderstand something or simply not to understand what the whole fuss is about. I already have read the TeXBook in the past, but having small to none experience (especially with TeX without "La"), it's hard to understand what DEK is talking about. I mean: I don't actually understand that well how boxes are created or vertical vs horizontal modes
@barbarabeeton I'm sorry… I never got quite that good to understand appendix D. To this date I never read it (except giving that a try before). Appendix I I never used :)
@barbarabeeton to corrorborate what you said about you being the source of some of the examples in Appendix D (the "Key index in Mathematical Reviews" for example) — I watched the series of videos and in them DEK often turns to you for confirmation/questions :-) He also assigned some of those examples as homework exercises in the "Advanced" class... the students didn't have the TeXbook then :-) Some are also in the Breaking Paragraphs into Lines paper.
@DavidCarlisle I guess thank @barbarabeeton for showing DEK the requirements of mathematical elegance, and DEK for making it possible somehow with dirty tricks :-)
@Moriambar I see that you have been talking about the dark corners of The TeXbook. I also saw that you have been discussing with @DavidCarlisle and @daleif about the positioning of superscripts, that is, Rule 18 of Appendix G.
Sorry, I should have said “Good evening to everybody”, first…
@DavidCarlisle I've never got that many votes for anything. And the system won't let me give you more than a couple of votes for debugging threeparttable :(.
@GustavoMezzetti Hey. The topic is really long, I will summarize: I read appendix G after reading/answering a question related to mathtools. Then I discussed further here and it prompted what you've seen (my "essay" on math superscript and whatnot). @daleif will tell you that the issue is solved, using his magic. Then @DavidCarlisle told me to read Chap 23 and Appendix D, but I find those way too advanced right now
@GustavoMezzetti I hope I've answered you more than you deemed necessary. If it is a bit misleading too, it's like my main site answers and I can be satisfied
@cfr :-) I just thought it funny: when I saw the badge alert I had no recollection of the answer just from its title and when I looked at the answer I saw why: it was not at all memorable. I have no idea why that one picked up so many votes. It's not trivially silly like the grandma answer, and it doesn't show any particular tex knowledge
@Moriambar One important point to note is that $\sigma_{18}$, which comes into play when the superscript is affixed to a subformula, and not to a single character, is taken froma the relative script font, e.g., \scriptfont 2.
@GustavoMezzetti the original question was the difference between \mathclose{\rvert}^2 and \mathclose\rvert^2 so two odd things: \mathclose without braces doesn't form a subformula so triggers different rules from appendix G and then you don't see the difference in the mathtools manual as it happened to use fourier
@DavidCarlisle Yes, I know the difference between \mathclose\rvert and \mathclose{\rvert}. In any case, if you want to change the look of the output I would not touch any of the parameters of the font of the nucleus: I would adjust \fontdimen18 of the relative script size.
By the way, on te other hand \mathclose\vert and \mathclose{\vert}are the same, aren’t they?
@GustavoMezzetti it wasn't an intentional markup it was just arising out of a use of mathtools declarepaireddelimiter thing which produced an "unexpected" result if used with cm even though it looked Ok in the example in the manual. I understand daleif's addressed it now at source,
@cfr I was thinking about the unrooted tree stuff. It seems that it might be possible to do it with forest by messing around with different edge paths. For example in the first diagram, you treat C as the root, branching to an empty node whose branches are horizontal etc. So the tree would look like this:
@cfr Because ultimately an unrooted tree can be thought of as a rooted tree is you pick one node to be the root. But the edge paths would then hide which one you picked.
@Moriambar I could contribute a small test program that I’ve written this evening, which, I think, illustrates pretty well what’s going on. But not now, tomorrow. Now it’s time for bed, for me… :-)
@daleif I could try. It seems to be a titanic effort :) Do you have a better suggestion for a question name, other than "positioning superscripts (without subscripts)"?
@GustavoMezzetti Ok, I will do my best, but anyone is free to override my answer and edit it and do whatever whenever they feel: I won't be home tomorrow, so I won't be able to attend to it
@daleif I guess @Moriambar is now writing the question. But, wait a minute: it was @DavidCarlisle who rose the problem first, wasn’t it? Let’s let him ask the question! ;-)
@GustavoMezzetti yes I'm writing. He would never ask one, I bet. Other than that I suspect that if he asks it @egreg will pop up and answer quicker and better than me
@Moriambar I could contribute a small test program that I’ve written this evening, which, I think, illustrates pretty well what’s going on. But not now, tomorrow. Now it’s time for bed, for me… :-)
@DavidCarlisle @GustavoMezzetti it was a question on the site. I could not explain why there was a diffence so I came here. The first time we talked about it the conclusion was that the braces had something to do with it. The in my write up I noticed the issue is not shown if the Fourier package was used, so I came here again. Then @Moriambar went through appendix G
This is best done stepwise.
Step 0 - Notation and definitions
Any symbol fonts (ie font family 2 in TeX language) must have at least 22 parameters in three different "styles" in order for TeX to typeset a formula. The "styles" roughly can be grouped as "text" for "display style", "text style" ...
@daleif @DavidCarlisle @GustavoMezzetti ^^^
it's awful but it's also quite late
@daleif @DavidCarlisle @GustavoMezzetti any suggestions are welcome, but probably you would be better off editing them in, since tomorrow I mostly won't be able to do anything to the question; I'll do what I can. I'm also waiting for the scolding of @egreg's and his better answer ;)
@barbarabeeton is rule 17 of appendix g contradicting page 290, (the first paragraph that fully starts on the page)? The first says that all the math list whose nucleus is a single symbol are typeset as a single character box, while the second implies that only ord atoms with at most accent atoms are