@JosephWright Thank you, but as you might have seen, I'm doing very little for the site. I visit it mainly when I receive a mail notification like in this case. There are other enthusiastic users who deserve TUG membership much more than me. So, the answer is no.
Hi folks. What's the most painless way to get text like "Batič" to render correctly in regular pdflatex. Or do I need to switch to something that support UFT8 (or whatever)?
I want references in my article to be Surname, Forename{Initials}. Also with only the first letter of the surnames to be caps lock. I am running these commands but I do not get the desired format. How should I do it?
\documentclass[11pt, a4 paper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{graphi...
@JosephWright, no I didn't see. A recent days due to cached flu I only occasionally beside my PC :-(. Mainly looking if some simple question are on TeX. SE (for more I'm still not fit). I check now, but there now I don't see any your question.
@CarLaTeX Hm, yes. I find it a little bit strange that compared to 2015 there are so few self-nominations. It's difficult to get the list filled, actually
@JosephWright @CarLaTeX: I think it is just a matter of public outreach. We have lot of users, but not many know the Meta site and the 'advert' of Meta on the right panel on the main site. So it is limited in outreach and those who are active on Meta have a membership of their own already. In addition, you won't catch the careless user who comes in for one (stupid) question how to format his thesis and at best, write the thesis for him or her ;-)
@JosephWright — I sent off a new version of fontspec today; hopefully the last I need to do for a little while :) But I never got Travis CI working! Just to confirm — if you get an error in a test in Travis, you have no idea what that error was until you re-run the test suite locally? I'm wondering about an addition to l3build to output the diff if it fails in -H mode.
@JosephWright True... perhaps the 'competition' should take place, say, two weeks earlier and with a longer time for announcement? (Given that the settlement between SE and TUG is basically fixed and does not have be negotiated each year again)
@JosephWright Oh of course. makes sense :) I think you're right -- -V would be useful for other things (with -VV -VVV, etc, for different levels of verbositry)
@JosephWright Perhaps I misunderstand, but what about e.g. travis-ci.org/wspr/fontspec/builds/200626212? "Check failed with difference files - ./build/test/01-pkg-load-um.xetex.diff" Isn't that more specific than "something"?
@WillRobertson At least during set-up a local VM is still useful: working out which TeX Live packages one needs to get everything working is non-trivial, particularly for fonts
@DavidCarlisle TeX Gyre Termes only has U+2A and U+2217.
@JosephWright :)
@JosephWright — sorry I missed the (luc: thing — there have been so many commits recently it got lost in the mix, and when I grepped for "luc" nothing came up. You were too clever for me!
@WillRobertson @DavidCarlisle Of course none of this is correct: the asterisk in this case should not be superscripted. But that's a different ballgame altogether.
More seriously, in a sense, with both XeTeX and LuaTeX we could query the glyph bounds of the asterisk and dynamically calculate how much to shift it. If we were doing that we'd also want to scale it up (but probably using font commands rather than graphicx ones)
@WillRobertson but if doing that doing it in \textasciicentered is presumably the wrong place and you could just fix up a mapping or whatever so the 2217 slot worked?
@PauloCereda In Italian "papera" (= duck) also means lapsus, gaffe; whereas "oca" (= goose) also means "stupid woman". We don't have double meeting for "anatra" (= duck, too), instead.
First, the catcodes for % and * are changed. % is made an other sign, * is made a comment sign.
Therefore the next line "\gdef\processLineX%#1{" would normally be written with a "%" at the end of the line. Now the "" is the comment sign and will prevent the white spaces from acting on the following code or being printed out.
It will globally define the macro \processLineX. TeX has to search for the argument which has to begin with a percent sign. The next token will be stored in #1.
@Jan can not follow your comments in this form. First, the catcodes for % and * are changed. % is made an other sign, * is made a comment sign. is true, after that I have no idea what you are asking.
@CarLaTeX Pato, in Portuguese, might also be a slang for naïve. And the expression pagar o pato (literally pay the duck) means something that you get responsible for, even if it's not your fault.
@WillRobertson partly related to previous comment about how far this should go, it's better in some sense but we could also test for composites and use the composite only if it is there and and \accent if it is not (which may reduce the need to use the tuvariant encodings feature) but ....
@DavidCarlisle If we were to provide a standard solution along these lines, I would prefer to do it when first loading the font. And in LuaTeX this can be done seamlessly by constructing a virtual font on the fly. So for the time being I think what we have is a good approach... after all, it's only providing an equivalent to xunicode, which no-one has really complained about for 10-odd years :)
@WillRobertson yes agreed, if we were luatex only I think fixing up a virtual font so all needed slots are filled would be better than fixing up csname definitions but where we are now i agree that a definition as above is best we can do
@DavidCarlisle @WillRobertson the fun seems to be over but my two cents: imho some fallback code like the one from Will in such emergency case is quite ok but I wonder if one could add some debug code so that one can easier check where the fallbacks are used, e.g. through a parallel TU-debug encoding ...
@egreg I had some email from them about that earlier in the year they've been doing pixel for pixel comparisons of rendered pages, they picked up a few things...
@barbarabeeton Do you know why the search in the various mailing lists archive disappeared? E.g. tug.org/pipermail/xetex Is there somewhere a replacement?
@JosephWright -- this year, there's another reason to get names in early for tug membership. it's an election year, and only members can vote. in fact, the slate of candidates has been posted (just yesterday), and voting is open.
@JasperLoy -- somehow, earlier editions of "more math" got overlooked. but there is a review of the 5th edition, added january 19. "guide to latex" is also there, although it's not near the top of the books page. you just have to keep looking.
@JosephWright -- you're not the only one. i know all these people, and it's still a hard choice!
@egreg yes but not sure it's any easier, I don't want to set the height just the depth (which is the second optional) I was going to do that but ... On the other hand probably should in a kernel file
@MaestroGlanz can not change the actual units that are accepted such as pt from the macro layer, that would have to be done in the engine (which has no knowledge of \textwidth)
@egreg which is one reason I stuck to .6 rather than .7 or more as the shift, the more you shift by default the more it's likely to do something silly on unknown fonts
@MaestroGlanz well that's pgf specific of course using pgfparsing just to default the units would be too much but if ##1 is anyway ` pgf math expression fiar enough. the ifx##1 looks suspicious though, what is ##1 here?
@MaestroGlanz yes clearly it's inside another macro hence ## but I just meant that in general ifx\BooleanTrue##1 is safer than ifx##1\booleanTrue unless you have very close control over the possible values of '##1
@MaestroGlanz Yes sure, but the official way this should be used is testing with \IfBoolean(TF) and (ideally) that appearing directly in the code implementing your document command
@cfr quite a bit changed, but what exactly broke? given that a high level description of xparse is "tex programming without \expandafter " a bit sad to see so many \expandafter there:-)
Given that the last time I touched this file was in 2015 and I load it in almost every document I compile, something else seems to have changed. Or I'm missing something.
@DavidCarlisle Yes, well. I probably wouldn't write it this way now. But this is not at all recent. (The 2015 file touch date is unlikely to have concerned this code. I probably just added a new prefix.)
@cfr @DavidCarlisle @JosephWright As far as I can see if I compare it with my miktex (which still has the older xparse) the handling of definition without arguments has changed. \fancyrefclaimlabelprefix is no longer a "simple" variable. But I wouldn't call it a bug. Imho it is not correct to use \NewDocumentCommand for such things. \newcommand or \def or \tl_set:n are more sensible. Btw: You don't seem to use the optional argument #1.
@UlrikeFischer @cfr as I recall part of a move to keep the argument specification with the command (even in the no argument case) rather than storing them separately but iIdidn't follow the discussions that carefully;-)
@cfr But it is not related to the number of argument, { m m } gives a "simple" macro too in miktex, but as soon as optional arguments are involved the macro is more complicated.
@DavidCarlisle -- not yet -- there's a question about who is to send it. regarding your username and password, send a message to the tug office to get that info.
i'm about to go offline -- theater tickets. if it isn't called off on account of the snow ... which has already deposited about a cm. (prognosis -- 10-25cm, but it keeps changing. blizzard watch on again.)
@UlrikeFischer That was always an implementation detail
@cfr As others have noted, looks like you were relying on how we were implementing commands created by \NewDocumentCommand with 'simple' arg specs: that was never supported
@JosephWright Have you been watching? Ryan Day made the finish very interesting, getting from 9:3 to 9:7, the final is 10:7 and Barry Hawkins got the title.
@JosephWright Hello :) I see some changes to the xparse package, are they just the e argument type and the “self-referential” possibility in the optional arguments?
Hou could one define something like the old \NewDocumentCommand \integral { k_ k^ } { \int \IfValueT{#1}{_{#1}} \IfValueT{#2}{^{#2}} }?
Personally, I think the k arguments should be different from a “multiple-option single-token” argument. So, first, I don't entirely understand what e does; plus in my opinion there was another type missing in the past. And now I see that a mix of those is implemented, so I would like to understand (if it's fast) how it works :)
@JosephWright Yes, I've been “out” of TeX for some time. Sorry to bother here.
@JosephWright Okey, I can imagine something like { \int \IfValueEq{#1}{_}{_{#1}} \IfValueEq{#1}{^{#1}} } (not working as of now, but something in that direction may be?)
@Manuel No: the whole point of 'experimental' here is we need some 'space' to explore ideas. If we try to keep everything, even on a deprecated basis, we'll get bogged down entirely.
@Manuel How do you see k being useful in place of e^ e_ if you want a fixed order?