@PauloCereda I found my old self-written manual for ghostscript.yaml

You coul add it here, if you want:

%### ghostscript.yaml ###
% arara: pdflatex
% arara: ghostscript: {  resolution: 300, device: pngalpha  }

%#######################################
%# Parameters by default:
%# { program: gs / gswin32c ,  resolution: 300  , device: png16m ,
%#   alphabits: 4 , allpages: false ,
%#   options: -q -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH  -dEPSCrop }
%#
%# resolution: <number>  (300 [dpi] by default)
%#
%# allpages: false (1st page as PNG)/ true (all pages as seperatly PNGs)
%#
%# alphabits: <number> (4 by default)
%#
%# device (examples):

@UlrikeFischer nothing at all:-) actual reason is to learn some German language and culture

@DavidCarlisle I thought the z is perhaps some special english idiom that I don't know as I can't find the z on my keyboard ;-) I wonder how much German culture you can learn in a park which is mostly about "back to wilderness and nature".

@UlrikeFischer day trips to Cologne and Kommern Freilicht Museum as far as I can see and some lessons at a Language school somewhere around there...

@DavidCarlisle we were quite regularly in Kommern when we still lived in Bonn and Siegburg and we are still member of their "Förderverein". That's quite nice if you are interested in history.

@DavidCarlisle I just ran that graphicspath with utf8 in latex-dev and it seems to work ...

@UlrikeFischer in a case when it wouldn't find the file normally? What's Frank changed.....

@DavidCarlisle I didn't check on a real case, only if you still get an "invalid utf8"

@UlrikeFischer ah OK, I thought you meant \graphicspath{a/b/c} worked instead of \graphicspath{{a/b/c}}

I'm looking at the PGF manual, and I was hoping someone could clarify one of the examples for me. I'm not sure what is going on here.

\def\a{bottom}
\def\b{\a}
\def\c{\b}
\pgfkeys{/key1/.initial=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key2/.initial/.expand once=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key3/.initial/.expand twice=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key4/.initial/.expanded=\c}
\def\a{{\ttfamily\string\a}}
\def\b{{\ttfamily\string\b}}
\def\c{{\ttfamily\string\c}}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
Key 1:& \pgfkeys{/key1} \\
Key 2:& \pgfkeys{/key2} \\
Key 3:& \pgfkeys{/key3} \\
Key 4:& \pgfkeys{/key4}
\end{tabular}

This is the Key handler hkeyi/.expand once=<value> section.

It's probably suitable as a question. Should I ask it as a question?

@FaheemMitha if I make that into a document I get what I would have expected from the names of the .zzzz functions:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{pgfkeys}

\begin{document}

\def\a{bottom}
\def\b{\a}
\def\c{\b}
\pgfkeys{/key1/.initial=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key2/.initial/.expand once=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key3/.initial/.expand twice=\c}
\pgfkeys{/key4/.initial/.expanded=\c}
\def\a{{\ttfamily\string\a}}
\def\b{{\ttfamily\string\b}}
\def\c{{\ttfamily\string\c}}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
Key 1:& \pgfkeys{/key1} \\
Key 2:& \pgfkeys{/key2} \\
Key 3:& \pgfkeys{/key3} \\
Key 4:& \pgfkeys{/key4}
\end{tabular}
\end{document}

@FaheemMitha \c, \b, \a, bottom

@DavidCarlisle I'm not saying there is anything wrong.

I just don't completely understand what is happening.

Is the TeX book an understandable/simple guide to TeX expansion? I realise I don't really understand that either.

@FaheemMitha as I say the output is as I'd expect from names like .expand once even without looking what pgfkeys is really doing.

@DavidCarlisle Yes, I realise that.

@FaheemMitha you haven't said what you don't understand, were you expecting a different outcome (basically you haven't asked a question that can be answered, just posted some code:-)

@DavidCarlisle Yes, I was writing a question. But it's not complete.

Like I said, I realised I don't really understand how expansion works.

So I was looking at some documentation.

@DavidCarlisle quack

But to start with, would I be correct to think that after the macro \c was redefined by \def\c{{\ttfamily\string\c}}, when the key executed the code, it woudl be executing the new macro?

Also, it's a bit confusing to have a macro redefined in terms of itself.

@FaheemMitha \c is used after \string, so it won't be expanded.

@egreg Oh. Hmm. One more thing I didn't know.

@FaheemMitha Of course, you should not redefine \c at all.

I don't understand. First, isn't that code redefining the macro \c as well as the others? Sure looks like it.

@FaheemMitha Probably I'd choose \edef\c{{\noexpand\ttfamily\string\c}} so the new meaning of \c doesn't depend on the value of \escapechar at call time.

@FaheemMitha I mean, in a “real” document.

@egreg Sorry, that's a bit over my head.

@egreg Oh, right. Sure.

I realise this is just for illustrative purposes.

@FaheemMitha Try \def\c{{\ttfamily\string\c}}\c \escapechar=-1 \c

@egreg By try it, you mean feed it to the interpreter?

@FaheemMitha Yes

@FaheemMitha Next, try \edef\c{{\noexpand\ttfamily\string\c}}\c \escapechar=-1 \c

@egreg It complains about \c being undefined. Not surprisingly.

@egreg Pretty much the same thing.

Ok, just to be clear, calling \def a second time overwrites the old defn. I know that much.

@FaheemMitha Try this:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

{\def\c{{\ttfamily\string\c}}\c \escapechar=-1 \c}

{\edef\c{{\noexpand\ttfamily\string\c}}\c \escapechar=-1 \c}

\end{document}}

Now, presumably it uses the old defn when it does so, in this case.

Actually, let's back up to the beginning of that code.

So, in:

\pgfkeys{/key1/.initial=\c}

Am I correct to think that the value saved from the rhs is simply the text \c.

So what it expands to in the future will depend on whatever it is defined to expand to at that time?

@FaheemMitha Yes

@egreg Excellent. Thank you for the confirmation.

Also, \def\a{{\ttfamily\string\a}} clearly overwrites the previous definition of -a.

However, I'm not sure what the resulting macro is.

At first glance it would appear that the previous defn simply gets overwritten and forgotten, but clearly that does not happen.

According to en.wikibooks.org/wiki/TeX/string, \string simply converts it its corresponding string, as one would expect.

So, naively, it looks like \a simply expands to the printed representation of \a. But that is also clearly wrong.

Because that would render the exercise pointless, and the entire output would be simply \c.

Sorry, I should have written above - \string simply converts the following token to its corresponding string.

@FaheemMitha the macro is defined as you show, {\ttfamily\string\a} which if used typesets the string \a in monospace font, the previous definition of \a is lost in the current scope.

@FaheemMitha yes that does happen.

@DavidCarlisle Oh.

In that case, why don't all those strings output \c?

@FaheemMitha which, in your pgf example or egreg's edef version?

@DavidCarlisle My PGF example. Which is straight from the documentation, to be clear.

So in that sense it's not my example.

@FaheemMitha because the first key is defined to be \c but the second key is defined to be \b the third key is defined to be \a and the fourth key is defined to be bottom

@DavidCarlisle Oh, I see. The expansion occurs at the time the keys are .initialized.

So not at the time they are run? Or I guess the expansion would continue at the time they were run, if they weren't fully expanded?

BTW, is it possible in TeX to actually define a macro in terms of itself?

That doesn't seem like a great idea, but I also don't see how it would work.

@FaheemMitha \def\z{\z} but it loops forever

@FaheemMitha that's the natural reading of \pgfkeys{/key2/.initial/.expand once=\c} that the key is initially defined with the first expansion of \c.

@DavidCarlisle That's what I thought. I suppose TeX will obediently try to expand \z in terms of the current definition of \z, so recursion without end.

@DavidCarlisle Ok. I guess this didn't quite register with me. I suppose I thought it would happen when the key was executed.

@FaheemMitha \def\z{\z} is literally without end, it's tail recursion elimiation means you will have to kill the program. \def\z{.\z} will run for a while then overflow the call stack and \def\z{\z.} will run for a while then overflow the input buffer

But I see that the documentation does say the first expansion is saved.

@DavidCarlisle So there is no useful way to call a TeX macro in terms of itself?

@FaheemMitha I haven't seen the doc or that form before I just guessed what it was doing from the name

@DavidCarlisle Ok.

@FaheemMitha sure but like any recursion in any language, you need some end condition somewhere

@DavidCarlisle So that's possible?

Adding an end condition, I mean.

@FaheemMitha \def\z{\advance\count0 1 \ifnum\count0<100 \z \else stop\fi}

@DavidCarlisle Yes, I see. So it prints 1 to 99?

@FaheemMitha it could do that but as written it just calls itself 100 times (if count0 starts at 0) and then typesets stop (so count0 will be 100 but if you did \the\count0,\z instead of just \z in the recurse case it would print all the values

@DavidCarlisle Ok, right.

@DavidCarlisle fixed point. :)

@PauloCereda \def\duck{\def\duck{dinner}\duck}\duck

@DavidCarlisle ooh I see what you did there

@DavidCarlisle it's mean yet clever :)

@PauloCereda and tasty

@DavidCarlisle oh no

@DavidCarlisle ^^

@PauloCereda wise advice, shame it never worked and no text ever appeared.

oh no

@DavidCarlisle oh no

<3

Does anyone know why @marmot was suspended?

@Raaja best not to discuss these things in public chat (I didn't know he was but if you scroll up this chat a few days you will see some discussions.....)

@DavidCarlisle ok I am sorry, I will refrain from repeating this in the future. Thanks for the reference.

@Raaja To stop escalating heated discussions on the site, a few users have been temporarily suspended to have a pause from this for a few days. Not meaning a bad thing from a single one or another user but to stop a fight here, so actually not a name needed.

@StefanKottwitz Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear for me, so is it common that both the end of parties will be suspended? is it the usual way?

@Raaja Nothing is common (luckily) as it's rare but that can happen if it wasn't possible to figure out who's fault it is (or if it's just one causing it) and when it has to be stopped and that wasn't possible by simply asking for it.

@Raaja Each case is handled on its own merits; there isn't really 'usual'

@StefanKottwitz @JosephWright Thanks for the clarification.

@StefanKottwitz @JosephWright [personal opinion] I think nothing is usual way or moderating is not fair to both the parties. Of course, the discussion will indeed end with the statement "it is what it is". Sometimes, it is worthwhile to sit in the shoes of the parties to get a different perpsective, I think. Nevertheless, thanks again for the clarification.

Hello everyone! I want to make citations without adding a references section at the end

\bibliographystyle{named}
\vspace{10000pt}
\bibliography{references}

Am I doing this correctly?

(lol)

@MeetTaraviya the \vspace is weird, I'd remove that, otherwise your markup looks OK if you have a references.bib and run bibtex, but that will make a references section.

Hi @DavidCarlisle I know how to use bibtex, I am trying to make in-text citations without creating a references section at the end

Hence the vspace

Its sends the references section the hell out of my page

@MeetTaraviya the vspace will do nothing it will just force a page break then be discarded. But if you don't want a reference section what do your citations refer to? If you just want it to say [Smith] then you can write [Smith] and don't need \cite at all.

@MeetTaraviya something very strange happening if it has that effect.

It's a single page poster

@MeetTaraviya and we were supposed to be able to tell that from the supplied code?

> According to British tabloid The Mirror Doctor Who’s twelfth season will include an episode in which Mary Shelley is inspired to write Frankenstein after meeting the Cybermen.

I am not trying to get help, I am just sharing something that I ended up doing after spending hours of tring to do it the "proper" way

@MeetTaraviya so why ask Am I doing this correctly? ???

You're an avid reader, but you missed the lol at the end

@MeetTaraviya I saw it but read what you posted from the viewpoint of someone who isn't you, it looks like a question about a document, not a statement about a poster.

@MeetTaraviya in general chat is a bad way of sharing things as it just scrolls up and essentially no one ever looks at the history. If you do want to share some technique it's better to ask a question and then post an answer.

@DavidCarlisle ^^ total of videos might take a while

I don't understand what Boris is getting at in the last two lines of this answer:

> Another example, suppose you want to define a series of commands like \endsection, \endsubsection, etc. Then you can use a loop with \expandafter\def\csname end#1\csname...

@FaheemMitha You could set them up by passing a list section,subsection,subsubsection, Etc.

github.com/clauseggers/Playfair-Display

@JosephWright Ok, but shouldn't it be \expandafter\def\csname end#1\endcsname...?

Hmmm...

@FaheemMitha yes (it is now)

@Werner scroll up an hour or two

@DavidCarlisle OK. Thank you.

@FaheemMitha Yes

@JosephWright Ok, thanks.

@DavidCarlisle Thanks.

twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1150505763724505088

@AlanMunn oh

Does \edef leave parameter tokens (e.g. #1) alone, as in not expand them? I suppose I could experiment, but it's easier to ask.

I can't imagine what it would do with it. After all, it still needs the parameter(s) even after expansion...

Also, TeX doesn't care if I stick the definition and execution of \defs inside \defs, correct?

@TeXnician a reply will come soon, hopefully. :)

@PauloCereda Take your time. I have quite a lot to reply as well :)

@TeXnician I blame the island. :)

@DavidCarlisle Now I decided to do some research on ω-languages because of our talk yesterday. :)

Is there some simple way of telling TeX not to expand anything from here to there?

@FaheemMitha \unexpanded{..............} (etex)

@DavidCarlisle Oh. But I don't see people using it.

That \noexpand thing is very popular.

@DavidCarlisle bah extensions

Doing a search.

@FaheemMitha there are not many times it is needed, also of course etex is still (after all these decades) not as well known as tex

@DavidCarlisle Does it work with LuaTeX too?

@FaheemMitha yes

@DavidCarlisle Ok, thank you.

@DavidCarlisle Trying to find a definition. But I suppose the argument needs to be balanced text, right?

@FaheemMitha yes, texdoc etex to see the original spec for \unexpanded (page 14)

@DavidCarlisle Ok.

Yes, that's what I was just looking at.

That's the definition?

@FaheemMitha yes exactly. It just returns its argument

Talk about terse.

@DavidCarlisle Oh. So like verbatim?

@FaheemMitha Talk about objectivity.

@PauloCereda ?

@FaheemMitha well \detokenize is more like verbatim unexpanded is more like putting \noexpand before each

@DavidCarlisle I forget what \detokenize does, but ok.

@FaheemMitha specified in the same document as that's an etex command as well

Oh, here's the definition.

@FaheemMitha so \detokenize is like putting \string in front of each token, instead of \noexpand

@DavidCarlisle Yes, I see. So it takes them out of action, so to speak.

@PauloCereda You shouldn't. Maybe the warm temperatures will never return from there ;)

@PhelypeOleinik See email

@JosephWright ^^ :-)

@DavidCarlisle ooh

@DavidCarlisle :)

@PauloCereda Did you see the secret message?

@JosephWright no... :(

@JosephWright Replied :D

@DavidCarlisle Should I "oh no" to that?

@PhelypeOleinik And actioned

@PhelypeOleinik oh no

@PhelypeOleinik Welcome to the team :)

@JosephWright Thanks :D

@PhelypeOleinik did you see the deleted message?

@DavidCarlisle Barely. You deleted before I was able to read.

@DavidCarlisle ooh a secret

@DavidCarlisle ooh

@JosephWright a secret!

@PhelypeOleinik @UlrikeFischer will be pleased that is no longer true:-)

@DavidCarlisle woo

@DavidCarlisle oh no? :-)

@PhelypeOleinik oh yes :)

@PauloCereda Thanks :-)

@PhelypeOleinik secrety secrets :)

@DavidCarlisle and what the second newest member of the team inherit?

@UlrikeFischer luaotfload

@PhelypeOleinik welcome and you could ask Frank for a shirt (but in view of my experiences with the brasilian post system you probably won't get it before christmas):

@UlrikeFischer das Bär

@UlrikeFischer my tee is somewhere. :)

@DavidCarlisle that I got before I was in the team, that was my ticket.

@UlrikeFischer /pdfmark then :-)

@DavidCarlisle buh. I want to keep the blame, that's more fun.

@UlrikeFischer Thanks! It would be a nice christmas present :-)

@PhelypeOleinik But you are going to pay the customs anyway. :)

@PauloCereda That is if someone at the customs doesn't decide the shirt is illegal, for some reason :P

@PauloCereda Perhaps (and that is a very long perhaps) I'll move to Europe for my PhD, then I'll ask for one :-)

@PhelypeOleinik No. Correios is now in charge of any international parcel that arrives in Brazilian soil, and they charge R$ 15,00 for releasing it.

@PhelypeOleinik Yay! Yay! Yay!

@PhelypeOleinik congrats!

@PauloCereda Hm... Less than I would've guessed :-)

@PhelypeOleinik Still, you are paying for something others sent you. :)

@PauloCereda As I said, a very long perhaps.

@PauloCereda Not surprising

@PhelypeOleinik not at all. :)

@PhelypeOleinik we should update the getRandBlame routine now. :)

@PauloCereda I'd propose weighing the distribution based on the time the subject is part of the Team :-)

I wouldn't mind a TeX t-shirt.

@PauloCereda Sorry you got beaten to be first Brazilian on the team ...

@PauloCereda here's a suggested implementation echo Phelype

@DavidCarlisle My life has no meaning anymore ;-(

@UlrikeFischer you can still be blamed for anything wrong with hyperref or the oberdiek packages, and of course anything in miktex

@marmot Hi, The Physics SE website is impressive: I don't see a serene climate but many heavy and rude comments. I don't even know how to write a question anymore. There is no union, there is no humanity, most of them are cold and without a bit of heart. They vote against me or even eliminate the good questions, just for theoretical clarification. But what is this site for?

@StefanKottwitz @JosephWright Good evening. Excuse me for this request. I don't want to go into the merits of your decisions and personal situations. I do not understand marmot should be suspended. I personally absolutely do not see anything that has done bad. Why do good and competent people always have to flee? For some there were very good reasons for marmot I do not understand. Excuse me, but I believe in the friendship of all of us. Good evening

@Sebastiano Can we please leave this discussion out of chat.

@Sebastiano If you wish to discuss this, meta is the right place. However, note that there are limits on what the moderators can say in public

My phone isn't really up to it, but I heard there was a moon landing, or something....

@JosephWright <3

@DavidCarlisle ooh smiley thingy

@AlanMunn Yes, of course.

@JosephWright I'm sorry, Joseph, but I'm sorry a friend's leaving. I have never entered into discussions that remain personal between you. Sorry for my sensitivity.