What's the convention for the version in \ProvidesPackage{name}[version]? I read online that it should be the release date in YYYY/MM/DD format, but at the same time when I submitted a package on CTAN, they said that it should have the version number.
So should it be \ProvidesPackage{name}[YYYY/MM/DD v1.2.3]? or would \ProvidesPackage{name}[v1.2.3] be acceptable?
In particular, I intend to follow semantic versioning (semver.org) for my packages.
@Josh if you insist they will take 2016/01/01 as the version number and use the actual submission date as the date (that's what we do for base latex releases) although it's probably simpler if you give them something that looks more like a version number, the date has to be yyyy/mm/dd<space> (after expansion of macros) as it is converted to a number (by removing the /) for checking that the package is new enough in the rare occasions people use the \usepackage{pkgname}[2016/12/25] form
@Josh Normally the date and version are separate: CTAN have updated their form a bit so it recognises that :-) I've always gone with "version x.yl, dated YYYY/MM/DD", where x and y are numbers and l is a letter
@Josh The format of the optional argument to \ProvidesPackagerequires a date before any version number (so the date is the 'first optional' item, then a version string, then a description)
In TeX.SX the tags XeTeX and XeLaTeX are the same, but there is a big diference between this two topics, so when we look for something specific we get also results of little help. The same case happens with LaTeX an TeX. Thus splitting in two separate tags is of use, more opinions like this one?
@JosephWright this should be changed. Mods from the sites should be able to unrestrictedly grab Qs from Meta.SE that are closed as OT-specific-site-problem. Would you agree on this? I could try to fight for it...
I didn't find the following worthy of a question, so I come here to chat. I have never had a great deal of luck setting fonts with xelatex. But I recently got a fresh new installation, so I thought I would try again. WHenever I use \setmainfont on a font that exists, I get the following error:
! Undefined control sequence.
\__fontspec_add_nfssfont:nnnn ...\tl_if_empty:xTF
{#4}{\clist_set:Nn \l__fon...
l.3 \setmainfont[Ligatures=TeX]{Arial}
Any ideas?
I am using MikTeX, and I just updated all the packages.
I compiled with \setmainfont commented out. It seems my fontspec.sty is 2014/06/21, even though MikTeX believes it to be up to date.
My log shows fontspec.sty as 2014/06/21 v2.4a (as I just said above), but it does also show fontspec-xetex.sty as 2015/09/24 v2.4e. So that much matches David's list.
@DavidCarlisle I am busted! Indeed, while I didn't see it earlier, there was a stray copy of fontspec lying around. Deleted it and it ran. Thank you so much! +1
Des yeux qui font baiser les miens,
Un rire qui se perd sur sa bouche,
Voila le portrait sans retouche
De l'homme auquel j'appartiens
Quand il me prend dans ses bras
Il me parle tout bas,
Je vois la vie en rose.
@JosephWright nor me. I think if that issue needs to be addressed it should be at the engine level with a css style cascading font loader that finds something with the glyph or (easier and probably better anyway) make the user specify fonts for each language cf xecjk
@JosephWright -- that question had already been run by ams tech-support and i'd given him an answer; apparently that wasn't enough, but david's was essentially the same. (thanks, @DavidCarlisle.)
@RomainPicot there was a long meta thread about the 300px sidebar, basically users saying it's horrible and sx employees saying that is the size we need to sell adverts, so that's the size it is.
@barbarabeeton Pretty good! The lexical coverage is almost done, now I need to work on the syntactic side. :) And I discovered an algebra named banana which, despite the funny name, might help me a lot. :)
I would like the less obvious, but more inclusive, title of BibLaTeX for the dull, dumb, foolish, futile, ill-advised, irrelevant, laughable, ludicrous, naive, senseless, shortsighted, simple, trivial, dummy, loser, rash, thick, unintelligent, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, meaningless, mindless, moronic, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, simpleminded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unthinking and witless person.:) — Paulo Cereda40 secs ago
@Johannes_B There are some places where it's necessary. Both biblatex and beamer often get messed up by incomplete aux files due to errors or aborted compilations and won't work again unless you delete them. But yes, as a general case, I agree. That's why I don't use arara for most of my documents, although I do use it for some things.
@AlanMunn But that is (or should be) a deletion forced by the human user for a special situation, not by an automation tool. I love latexmk but corrupted aux files make me Gundar. :-)
@Johannes_B The last point was perhaps a bit of a non sequitur. I generally like to add multiple compilations/biber runs etc. at the end. There's no need to rerun biber or bibtex every time I compile, even if I have added new citations when I'm still working on the draft of the document.
@Johannes_B Yes, I like latexmk too. And since I use TeXShop, which has an engine for it, when I reach the last few stages of compilation I can simply at "mk" to the % !TEX TS-program <engine> line in my file.
@yo' I'm not using them either - I have so many different documents and compilation steps to handle that it would cost me to much time. Also I in most cases want to see the terminal output. But I have keyboard shortcuts to start latex, pdflatex, xelatex, lualatex, bibtex, biber etc and to switch between pdfviewers and texsystems.
@yo' I don't generally either (other than TeXShop engines).
@yo' But I do use latexmk for certain documents at the end when I want to make sure every cross-reference and citation is resolved. I've seen too many handouts/beamer presentations with (?) in them to not do that for documents I put out into the wild.
@yo' And @PauloCereda helped cook up a cool arara rule to allow me to make two different PDF documents automatically which I use when I create syllabuses for a multiple section course that I supervise. (The schedules vary based on the days of the week the classes are held, but I can generate all in one compilation, which is really nice.)
@HenriMenke how long ago? If it doesn't show up soon, I suppose we could see if anyone at Heidelberg remembers that they have been running listserv since the beginning of time.
@AlanMunn I had actually written a short answer (the comment I added is part of it), but I felt like the question was different, judging from your comment. :D
@AlanMunn You're right, but your comment solved the question issue, mine was just a clarification. I think you should answer. :D I can pass to you my short answer if you want to include it (with the formatting and all).
It was suggested in chat
http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9482087#9482087
That picture mode would be the ideal tool for the job here:
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
\begin{picture}(200,100)
\put(30,40){\line(1,0){150}}
\put(30,40){\line(0,1){60}}
\put(30,100){\line(...
I am in the process of writing my thesis and I want to use LaTeX for it. But my professor is using Microsoft Word for editing errors and adding ideas so if I use LaTeX, I should constantly change the thesis from Word to LateX and vice versa. So should I use the LaTeX? I absolutely don't like usin...
In this post there is this image:
Is there a way to create such backgrounds? It doesn't have to be a LaTeX native method, hopefully open source. A library of backgrounds usable would be a nice addition.
Added later: I didn't mean backgrounds created with the mentioned tools, necessarily. A pl...
@DavidCarlisle Yes I saw your comment. You do have a point. Do you think it would be OT even if he was only asking how to trim/use the background images in TikZ? I'm not sure on that.
And if you think your answer suits the question, sure, why shouldn't you. :D
In TeX.SX the tags XeTeX and XeLaTeX are the same, but there is a big diference between this two topics, so when we look for something specific we get also results of little help. The same case happens with LaTeX an TeX. Thus splitting in two separate tags is of use, more opinions like this one?
In this post there is this image:
Is there a way to create such backgrounds? It doesn't have to be a LaTeX native method, hopefully open source. A library of backgrounds usable would be a nice addition.
Added later: I didn't mean backgrounds created with the mentioned tools, necessarily. A pl...
