if I have more than one l3build test in a dtx does one of the generated lvt have to have a base name identical to that of the source file?

@UlrikeFischer not if he's canadian :(.

more seriously, the National Society for the Protection of Bears advises that travel to the UK is mostly safe, but that some additional precautions may be advisable in central London. first, bears are advised to avoid accepting invitations from strangers going by the names of 'Christopher Robin' or 'Alice', especially around teatime. second, they are reminded that Paddington offers assistance to bears in distress and is open round-the-clock for emergencies.

@cfr He has a german passport ^^^

@cfr lvt files can have any name you want (and are not normally in a dtx?)

@UlrikeFischer lucky bear :-)

@DavidCarlisle hmm ...

@cfr if you look at any of our test files they are usually named after the issue raised not after the source file of the package eg most of the ones here are called githib-????.lvt github.com/latex3/latex2e/tree/develop/required/tools/testfiles

Oh, I see some British - Italian love in the comments...

@mickep I can't guess what you mean

@DavidCarlisle Of course not.

Too many such threads by now, so not so easy to guess which.

@DavidCarlisle yes, but not in .dtx form. it's not related to the name of the package, definitely. only the name of the .dtx in testfiles/. it can be called anything. but one of the generated tests apparently has to have the same name.

@DavidCarlisle and, no, I have no idea why I put tests into .dtx, especially since I didn't put anything else in this package into .dtx. seems a weird way round to do it. apparently 2 months is too long to remember why I did something so inconvenient :(.

@cfr you should probably show an example, you are probably just seeing some accidental code path, I don't think we have ever tested extracting test files from dtx

@DavidCarlisle it's in the documentation.

@cfr we have documentation? wow, learn something new every day.

@cfr but still the behaviour you describe (if I understand it) sounds accidental to me

@cfr oh yes 3.1

@mickep Teasing David is always fun. ;-)

@egreg Easy trigging.

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[standard]{ntheorem}
\usepackage[margin=5.5cm]{geometry}

\emergencystretch90pt

\begin{document}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\end{document}

A colleague had that problem. It seems there is a fill or something inserted. Even doing al\-go\-rithmic does not help...

Is some hfill or similar hskip with fil(l) inserted?

@mickep well \emergencystretch90pt is not a great idea.

@UlrikeFischer Well, why doesn't it hyphenate?

(I of course agree that the emergencystretch set is ridiculously high)

@DavidCarlisle I will try to make one. well, I'll try again. my second effort just created a 993M log file full of

I assume the emergencystretch makes the stretched space cost almost nothing while the hyphenation will cost a hyphenation penalty. But even setting hyphenpenalty and exhyphenpenalty to 0 (and doing al\-go\-rithmic does not help...

END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG


END-TEST-LOG

because I forgot it would try unicode engines by default.

(It stopped at 993M because I killed xetex. I expect it would still be going otherwise.)

@mickep it will if you let it, try with A fantastic algori\-thmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.

@mickep One of the reasons why I don't recommend ntheorem.

@DavidCarlisle Yes, but then try with A fantasy al\-go\-ri\-thmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.

@egreg What is causing it?

@mickep The unpleasant things ntheorem does…

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage[margin=5.5cm]{geometry}

\newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}

%\emergencystretch90pt

\begin{document}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X that has a very long description]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\end{document}

@mickep there isn't enough flexibility in the first line so if you can't break at exactly the right place it's badness 10000 and you are relying on emergencystretch

@mickep If you add \emergencystretch=90pt you get the same with amsthm. Now try the following.

@egreg Looks indeed better. Not clear to me what the differences is. (I have never used ntheorem, so I never saw this)

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[standard]{ntheorem}
\usepackage[margin=5.5cm]{geometry}

\emergencystretch90pt

\begin{document}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X that has a very long description]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\end{document}

Oh, I missed that the emergencystretch was not there...

@mickep If you really want the description to be boldface, it's not difficult to get it also with amsthm

@egreg So, they set it in a box.

@mickep Yes, that's the reason.

@egreg I am fine with these examples.

Oh, hi mrf (a colleague of mine) :)

I tend to hack my own theoremstyles in ntheorem, they work a little better. Fx mixing normal and break when there is optional arg is rather useful (IMO looks better).

hehe, I was curious - guessed it was here you got your weird ideas, Micke :)

BTW: in expl3 we can get some rather long macro names. In l3doc's function env, is there a way to break the line so the syntax env comes under the double lines with the function name?

@mickep With the new keytheorems package

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{keytheorems}
\usepackage[margin=5.5cm]{geometry}

\newkeytheoremstyle{ntheorem}{
  headpunct=,
  notefont=\bfseries,
}

\newkeytheorem{Theorem}[style=ntheorem]

\emergencystretch90pt

\begin{document}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{Theorem}[A remarkable result of Mr X that has a very long description]
A fantastic algorithmic but freakingly donut has exactly one hole.

^ @mrf

@egreg That seems to work well with these examples, indeed, and with bold title if that is what one wants.

@mickep Well, I don't like it, to be honest.

@egreg I agree that the non-bold looks better. Too much bold easily gets a bit ugly. But I also guess that one could get used to it.

@mickep I've had several users asking for how to bold them, so it probably depends on the person. But agree if the note is long, the bold get excessive.