« first day (4920 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) » 

tsj
1:29 AM
will all features of microtype ever be implemented in luatex/xetex? for some longer printed things i use more than just protrusion
 
 
4 hours later…
5:30 AM
@tsj Oh, what do you miss?
 
 
2 hours later…
7:45 AM
l3kernel-dev is out :)
 
@JosephWright Nice! Any interesting news?
 
8:14 AM
@mickep No, just means there is a testing pre-release
 
@JosephWright Aha, I see
 
8:26 AM
@JosephWright I'm out too (chess) so l hope nothing breaks ;-)
 
@mickep things will still break but now we can blame the user for not having used the -dev release to test things, so clearly that's a better situation than before
@tsj I doubt xetex will see any further development at all, but luatex, possibly, if someone does it. See you already have @mickep tempted....
 
@DavidCarlisle Well, I did not even know what is missing from microtype in luatex.
@DavidCarlisle Ah, and today you can even blame the chess player.
 
@mickep ignorance is no reason not to volunteer
 
@DavidCarlisle Oh no.
 
8:47 AM
@mickep there is quite a change in the object handling in tagpdf which comes in effect in dev so ...
 
@UlrikeFischer Oh, that is indeed something.
 
9:13 AM
@samcarter ooh a kangaroo eating broccolli twitter.com/shouldhaveanima/status/1781583255344726391
 
 
1 hour later…
10:39 AM
@Cattleya Because I fix them usually :D
(You've surprised me, not that I thought that someone would pay attention to profile of some lurker lol)
This chat is interesting, it never ends
I mean, it has much activity (can even compare with TNB)
 
 
2 hours later…
12:20 PM
@PauloCereda ohh
 
 
1 hour later…
cis
1:37 PM
@DavidCarlisle Via pdf..... Whatever, I drew the pattern by myself.

BTW: I heard that 5 times: "dvi is better than pdf."
But by dvi-->svg convert the letters gone lost, only the TikZ-draws where converted.

So since I want results, I have to forget the theorie...
.....................
................................
................................................
..............................................................

Is that not possible?
---------------->


\newcommand\cardcolor[1]{%
\ifnum#1=0 black \else % with that it doesnt work.....
\ifnum#1<14 spadecolor%
\else \ifnum#1<27 heartcolor%
\else \ifnum#1<40 diamondcolor%
\else clubcolor%
\fi\fi\fi\fi%
}
 
@cis is what not possible, you probably want black\else not black \else as\color{black } isn't \color{black}
@cis converting from pdf to svg is fine using dvisvgm to do it is a bit weird as it can not read pdf files
 
cis
Ehm.... I don't know, where my error was.... now it works.

Is this OK without '\relaxe's?

\newcommand\cardcolor[1]{%
\ifnum#1=0 cardframecolor%
\else \ifnum#1=53 cardbackcolor%
\else \ifnum#1<14 spadecolor%
\else \ifnum#1<27 heartcolor%
\else \ifnum#1<40 diamondcolor%
\else clubcolor%
\fi\fi\fi\fi\fi}
 
@cis you can't have \relax in a color name, \color{black\relax} is a syntax error
 
cis
@DavidCarlisle Yes.... So, I think the command is OK.
 
cis
2:17 PM
I also hacked $\heartsuit$, $\diamonduit$ from amsmath (there are others but...)
If somebody want: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RFoPC7vVcut5m20LIUGAcmB-ieiYIQdN/view?usp=sharing

But I dont set the cards to the Unicode-positions. Since I need that for propability-experiments, it is better for my issues to have them under \char1, \char2, ..., \char52.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:33 PM
@PauloCereda -- That's a tree kangaroo. Not from Australia.
 
 
3 hours later…
cis
6:12 PM
The random number method of @DavidCarlisle ( https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/715638/46023 ) promises to work much faster, if one uses a good *playing-card-font*, instead of drawing all cards with TikZ the whole time.

Here ~25 sec. for 444 steps (instead of ~6sec. per single step):
 
 
1 hour later…
7:34 PM
@cis That is also a way to say "thank you" to the people inhere suggesting to use a font. :)
 
 
2 hours later…
9:10 PM
user image
6
@JosephWright ^^ an useful periodic table
@barbarabeeton ooh :)
 
9:41 PM
@PauloCereda you need to know which elements you can use to garnish the duck
 
@DavidCarlisle oh no
 

« first day (4920 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) »