I'm trying to use a verbatim environment in the body of a macro, and it's giving me errors. I remember encountering this before, but can't remember what the issue is, exactly.
Hi, everyone. I'm new to TexMaker and MikTex, but I'm trying to test a .cls file that was sent to me. I've been searching online to try to find an answer but I'm still at a loss. Can anyone provide me with some insight?
@ErAvE What exactly do you need to know? You can put the class file in the folder of your source document and then use \documentclass{xxx} where xxx is the name of the class.
@ErAvE If you anticipate using the class repeatedly, then it's best to put it in your local texmf folder, but if it's a one-off use, then just keeping it in the same folder as your source will suffice.
@mickep -- I don't have a printed copy of the TeXbook handy, but I've noticed this sort of effect in TUGboat issues when I get the editor's copy to check. I"ve seen similar effects in even "high-quality" publications, such as in a copy of National Geographic, one signature printed in 4 colors (CMYK) was missing the Y component. (Made for very dark photographs.) It's a lapse of quality control in printing. For TUGboat, I don't usually complain unless the difference is very great.
@barbarabeeton I wonder why it is there. If there was some color figure on that page, I could understand. It is almost as if the MetaFont parameters were changed for that page only.
@mickep -- The cause is not the fonts or their design. It's the amount of ink on the press. Offset printing depends on a careful balance between oil (the ink) and water (the "fountain solution"). If the flow of ink isn't constant and carefully controlled, over- or underprinted pages can result. At the speed at which modern presses run, the balance can change in a fraction of a second, and some of the attention to this balance is still human. How quickly can you turn off a switch?
@FaheemMitha -- Expensive, certainly. So presses aren't likely to be replaced before their cost has been amortized. Automation and computers have not voided Murphy's Law, and I believe that QC is still largely human. My guess is that pages 154 and 155 are in different signatures.
@mickep -- Just curious ... Have you ever spent time in a printing establishment, or run an offset press? (It's a worthwhile experience. I've run a low-end offset, and the number of things that can go wrong really give one an unparalleled education.)
@barbarabeeton No, I haven't, and I don't know any close. The local publisher that the university often uses sends their print jobs to other (probably cheaper) countries. :/
@mickep -- The AMS still has an inhouse print shop. I was instructed by the very competent printer who was at the time head of that department. Although the equipment has been upgraded a number of times since then, the basic principles haven't changed. Offset printing is still based on the principle of oil vs. water.
@barbarabeeton That sounds very interesting. Maybe one day, I will get to see something like it. I hope the newer equipment gives the same good quality.
@mickep -- The newer equipment is certainly capable of excellent and consistent quality. It still has to be set up properly, and there are a lot more things that may need to be adjusted now.
@CroCo no idea:-) "correct" isn't the right word though more "the font you expected"
@CroCo but I do have matlab here, what exactly are you doing (I never used its latex tools) so if you give a matlab mwe I could look. Note that the tex mathcal font is a bit eccentric and might be difficult to copy unless you can actually use the tex fonts
syntax is input syntax the shape of the letters is just the font choice so I don't think that this is a case of supporting or not supporting latex syntax, presumably none of it is computer modern
@CroCo it is the same, it's just different. If you just write abc then you do not get exactly the same abc as in latex either, it is not using computer modern, this script font may be a bit more different than you expect but there is no conceptual difference
@CroCo but I was looking to see whether you could choose which font it is using
@DavidCarlisle and @CroCo -- I do think that "incorrect" is correct here. What's showing is a script font, which is not the same as calligraphic. Even Unicode has finally accepted that distinction.
@CroCo I think this but I couldn't get it to do anything, might be setting it in the wrong place
Live Editor normal font name, specified as a character vector. To get the list of available system fonts, use the listfonts function.
Example: s.matlab.fonts.editor.normal.Name.TemporaryValue = 'Arial'
@barbarabeeton ah you are here, I was going to blame you:-)
@barbarabeeton unicode14 has but I don't think any existing fonts support that so in current fonts you get whichever you get which (following Cambria math) is most likely the script version
@CroCo yes although there were separate ones for code and heading so I thought it was the output but as I say I couldn't make it waork
@CroCo yes arial was in their doc as an "obvious" change but I couldn't get it to work (I just searched for live script font in the matlab help came up with a page of such settings)
@DavidCarlisle if you do this, you can change the font s = settings s.matlab.fonts.codefont.Name.TemporaryValue = 'Times New Roman' But this changes only the command window font.
@barbarabeeton this is exactly my point. They claim the editor supports Latex commands but obviously this is not the appearance Tex provides.
@barbarabeeton the typesetting engine (whether matlab or tex) can't know what shape the characters are, you just get whatever the font designer put in the math script B slo
@CroCo no tex will provide exactly that if for example you use luatex and specify cambria math (which is probably closest to what matlab is doing) choice of font isn't the same as supporting or not supporting the syntax
@CroCo -- It's okay. @DavidCarlisle and I have known each other for a loooong time, and our insults are always meant in the other's best interests. (Living an ocean away from each other has its advantages.)
@Skillmon what's even worse than emoji being in unicode are keyboards which make it convenient for their users to spam the site with non-sense comments like this:
The question stackoverflow.com/q/70734894/2777074 makes me wonder if "advantage: you use tikz, disadvantage: you use tikz" would be a valid response :)
