« first day (4982 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) » 

12:14 AM
@DavidCarlisle Presumably I'm missing something. I thought English had such rules ....
Or do you mean the lack of institutional authorities? English seems to be the odd one out there, though.
@cfr not really, a vague preference for using double then single if nested but if single is used at the outer level it wouldn't look odd, but as you say lack of any institution or actual rules was what I mostly meant
@DavidCarlisle Oh. I learnt the opposite: single as outer for UK; double as outer for US. I guess the institution/rules thing doesn't seem as odd if you grew up in Wales. What is more alien is that people actually take any notice. (And more for language than punctuation.)
The only valid quotes are the «Spanish» ones :D
2 hours later…
2:11 AM
@Skillmon If you want to enjoy your weekend with some code, I have left you this (tex.stackexchange.com/q/721022/7832) :D
@PhelypeOleinik Hello, I hope you are still active, I have a stack of draft emails to send you :D...regards
@PauloCereda I'll have roast duck this weekend, pizzas aren't my thing :D
3:11 AM
@PabloGonzálezL You can hardly expect literacy of duck-eaters.
3:30 AM
@cfr The issue of "quotation marks" is always complicated, there is a big difference between the purists (I don't know how to say it in English) and those who go along with the usual.
What there is no doubt or difference, is roast ducks with chips...who doesn't like that :D
3:51 AM
@PabloGonzálezL Well, the duck I should think.
2 hours later…
6:20 AM
@Skillmon Happy with the change I made to ltkeys?
@JosephWright haven't seen it yet (just finished breakfast, and have to go to dayjob...)
@Skillmon Take care
1 hour later…
7:24 AM
Hello. Could you tell me how to create multiple \tcolorboxenvironment for the same environment? I have created something like

boxrule=0pt,frame hidden,
borderline west={5pt}{0pt}{mylightgray},%
borderline east={5pt}{0pt}{mylightgray},
right=12pt, % I'd avoid this
sharp corners
}, and I would like to create another, identical one, with borderlines with different colours. How could I do that? Thanks.
7:50 AM
@Bml Please post your question on one of the Q&A sites for latex. This way, any answer you might get won't be buried in a chat transcript and instead can be helpful for future users
@samcarter OK.
@Bml and regardless where you ask: code snippets are bad. I normally ignore questions where I have to spent my time to add a preamble and needed packages before I can test code.
8:04 AM
@JosephWright can you please give me a pointer?
@samcarter I've submitted the question.
@JosephWright yes, looking much better! :) (sorry for being an annoyance)
8:34 AM
@DavidCarlisle The commands you posted in the comment under my question don't work to me. Why?
9:13 AM
@Bml I deleted the comment in principle you could do that but tcolorboxenvironment doesn't work quite as I expected
@Skillmon No problem
9:30 AM
@PabloGonzálezL oh no
Happy Friday, everybody!
I miss you all
@DavidCarlisle OK, thanks. I tried \tcbtheorem, but I can't get it to work. P.S. Sorry for the (unintended) disrespect about MWE, I am mortified.
9:54 AM
@UlrikeFischer You have mail :)
@Bml no need to feel bad I'll clean up comments actually.
@DavidCarlisle No, there is no need to delete them, it is right to keep them. This is also a life lesson.
@Bml they've gone:-)
1 hour later…
11:29 AM
@PauloCereda I miss you, too. (and all the others) And unfortunately I won't see any of you this summer :( (TUG somehow manages to clash with my family holiday plans every second year)
@Skillmon awww /hug
@PauloCereda /nibble
@Skillmon Keep telling your little rabbits awesome stories from TUG meetings and they will beg you to go to TUG as family holiday :)
@samcarter Mr. Rabbit impersonating an elephant was one of the sweetest things in TUG 2023! <3
@PauloCereda Oh, such fond memories of TUG'23!
11:54 AM
@PauloCereda :D
2 hours later…
2:02 PM
Spending so time on a bus. Så finally actually reading interface3. Q: if the recommendation is that variables are always declared using _new macros, why is this not the case for l3keys?
@daleif ? keys have their own declaration mechanism, you can't use them without declaring them
@daleif Realism - as @DavidCarlisle says, you have to declare keys anyway, so we'd have incredibly repetitive code if we also required all variables to be created first
@DavidCarlisle I'm referring to say foo-bar .tl_set = \l_foobar_tl, should \l_foobar_tl be declared.
@daleif What I said ...
@daleif ah waht Joseph said, I thought you were asking why you don't have to "new" the key names
2:15 PM
Perhaps that should be mentioned in the manual. Just as good advice
Defines ⟨key ⟩ to set ⟨token list variable ⟩ to ⟨value ⟩. If the variable does not exist, it is created globally at the point that the key is set up.
@daleif that is what is meant by ^^
What I'm saying is that the manual states that it is good practice to always declare variables first, but this is not the case here.
@daleif You can define in advance - will still work fine
@daleif well, if the key is setting some variable used much elsewhere it probably is good practice to declare it, but the above quote explicitly means you don't have to in this case, and if the macro is just used very locally there probably isn't a need/
@daleif well I'm normally doing it and declare them, just to be on the safe side.
2:29 PM
Is it true that e-type expansion should almost always be preferred to o in expl3?
@cfr except when it's not. Often you want V rather than o and some things are not safe in e but are safe in o or V
@cfr basically if you are just expanding once to get a value from a variable name, then V is better (slower, but clearer) if you are just expanding once because you know that works because of implementation detains of what you are expanding, that's probably bad practice and e is better.
2:47 PM
@DavidCarlisle My older files prefer o to x. The newer ones prefer o to e. So they should prefer e? But I don't exactly understand why if o is enough?
\file_input:o { \l_cfr_paper_schema_steps_tl - cy }
\file_input:o { \l_cfr_paper_schema_steps_tl - ##1 }
\file_input:o { \l_cfr_paper_schema_steps_tl - ##1 - cy }
3:18 PM
@cfr I'd use e there the csname must be safe in an expansion content otherwise it would blow up in the file_input anyway
4:15 PM
@DavidCarlisle Thanks. It's actually from a file which predates e so my choices at the time I wrote it were o or x. But i wanted to know if I should change the os as well as the xs if/when I get around to changing the xs. (I think it shouldn't have been x? Or should it?)
4:30 PM
[And I use it in some code that I have no idea what it is meant to do ....]
4:44 PM
@cfr Almost always you either want V (exactly the value of a variable) or e (whatever it expands to)
5:23 PM
@JosephWright I was just curious what it should have been before \exists e.
& Thanks.
@cfr Read x for e unless in an expansion context
5:49 PM
@JosephWright Thanks.
1 hour later…
7:06 PM
@JosephWright @DavidCarlisle I'm sorry to be so annoying, but I still don't really understand why e is better than o. (Let alone x.) I can see saying at least e isn't worse in expl3, but why is it better? Please, just ignore me if you prefer.
7:18 PM
@cfr o only works if you know that exactly one expansion at the begin is needed. So it is a quite specific expansion which only works if you have full control about the implementation details.
7:42 PM
@UlrikeFischer Thanks. The implementation details of \file_input:n?
@cfr no, of \l_cfr_paper_schema_steps_tl
@DavidCarlisle ??
@cfr the difference between e and o is how \l_cfr_paper_schema_steps_tl is handled
Of the way tls are structured?
@cfr if you have \def\xxx{\yyy} \def\yyy{\zzz} \def\zzz{duck} then using \xxx gives you dinner, if you you use \foo:e{\xxx} then you are passing duck which conceptually is the value of \xxx but if you use \foo:o{\xxx} then you are passing \yyy to foo which might be the right thing but only if you know that one level of expansion of \xxx gives you \yyy, and that's what you need.
8:06 PM
@DavidCarlisle I'm really stupid and I can't even ask the question. But if I have \tl_set:Nn \xxx {<something>} is it because that relies on \tl_set:Nn being implemented in a particular way? Or is it because that relies on <something> being duck rather than something which expands to duck? Or is it both? Or neither?
^^ 'that' -> \file_input:o {\xxx} ...
@cfr one problem is that it's not clear if you are asking in general or about \file_input:n as for \file_input:n all variants are exactly identical as the base :n form fully expands its argument anyway
@cfr except that :o will undo one level of \protected if the very first token in the the argument is a \protected command. (as will V)
@cfr example coming up...
@DavidCarlisle Obviously a bad example, then. I wanted to ask generally.
@cfr No; in the free overleaf interface, I now see only 2023 as the latest version.
@AlMa1r you can get a beta of 2024 if you ask them (or wait a couple of weeks)
8:23 PM
@DavidCarlisle Is the worry that, say, the expl3 tl structure might change? That the code I have which uses that structure to process user input might change? Or that the structure of the user input might change? Or all/some/none?
8:38 PM
@cfr sorry got distracted...
@cfr mostly that your structure might change. it is easy to have a contract with your future self the some variable expands to (say) the name of a file or person or whatever so then using e will expand the tokens and get that "value" but if you use o (which is quicker, as it's just \expandafter) you are comitting to the definition of that token always being such that it;s first level expansion gives you what is needed and you never need to expand it twice
I don't know if it helps but....


\cs_generate_variant:Nn \tl_log:n {o,V}


\tl_set:Nn \l_xxx_tl  {[\xxx_bar:\xxx_foo:]}

\tl_log:n{\xxx_foo:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ n}
\tl_log:o{\xxx_foo:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ o}
\tl_log:e{\xxx_foo:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ e}
\tl_log:x{\xxx_foo:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ x}

\tl_log:n{\xxx_bar:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ n}
\tl_log:o{\xxx_bar:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ o}
\tl_log:e{\xxx_bar:,~ \l_xxx_tl different~ e}
@cfr produces
> \xxx_foo: , \l_xxx_tl different n.
> something, \l_xxx_tl different o.
> \xxx_foo: , [someone\xxx_foo: ]different e.
> \xxx_foo: , [someone\xxx_foo: ]different x.
> \xxx_bar: , \l_xxx_tl different n.
> someone, \l_xxx_tl different o.
> someone, [someone\xxx_foo: ]different e.
> someone, [someone\xxx_foo: ]different x.
> \l_xxx_tl n.
> [\xxx_bar: \xxx_foo: ]o.
> [someone\xxx_foo: ]e.
> [someone\xxx_foo: ]x.
> [\xxx_bar: \xxx_foo: ].
showing different outcomes for various variants.
@DavidCarlisle Thanks. I'm about to get distracted, so I will look at this later, if that's OK.
9:39 PM
@DavidCarlisle @UlrikeFischer If you wish to improve tex.stackexchange.com/a/721080 anyhow for the community, please feel free, as the answer is based on what you wrote.
@AlMa1r looks fine to me. it's always been true that you "sometimes" needed reset things after range although to be honest I didn't see exactly what had changed here to make it needed in this specific case (but I didn't look that hard).
9:53 PM
@cfr I've edited my original question and replied to your comment below the post tex.stackexchange.com/questions/721074/…
10:07 PM
@Bml there still isn't really anything in the post that can be answered.
@DavidCarlisle See my comment below yours.
@Bml for example
A: Phase Plane Plot using pst-ode

AlexGThe right-hand side of the given system of ODEs dx/dt = x + y + x^2 + y^2 dy/dt = x − y − x^2 + y^2 translates into algebraic notation, used by \pstODEsolve as its last argument, as \def\odeRHS{ x[0] + x[1] + x[0]^2 + x[1]^2 | x[0] − x[1] − x[0]^2 + x[1]^2 } Here, in the given case, the RH...

10:25 PM
@DavidCarlisle OK, thanks, this seems promising, but... Some differential equations (including the one I reported in the original question) have nonconstant solutions. So, how to fit them into the code implementation you sent me now?
@Bml no idea: that was literally the first hit on this site searching for plot differential equation, I didn't read it at all. If you try to adapt it to your case and get a tex error make an example that fails and ask about that, that would be a far more reasonable question.
@DavidCarlisle OK, I'll try...
@Bml and you can't say in the question you are looking for general notes not a plot of that specific function and at the same time say you need features relating to the specific properties of that equation.
1 hour later…
11:40 PM
@Bml It's still a do-this-whole-complicated-thing-for-me, just it doesn't have to be exactly this whole-complicated-thing. You say there that you found a similar example but don't understand it. What don't you understand? Ask about some specific thing you don't understand or can't adapt. That could be at the beginning or the end of what you're trying to do. You can always ask another question later.

« first day (4982 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) »