How can I make active ^^M expand to non-active ^^M? The following doesn't work.

\let\eol^^M
\begingroup\lccode`\~=`\^^M\lowercase{\endgroup\let~\eol}

@HenriMenke \edef^^M{\string^^M}

Why is it you asking that question!?

With my new unreleased package: \def \cA\^^M { \cO\^^M } (cA and cO are "active" and "other" respectively as in regex syntax)

@DavidCarlisle Is 12 the correct catcode for ^^M?

\the\catcode `\^^M

No it's 5

@HenriMenke define correct. It is a non active ^^M which is what you asked for

You can't get one with cat 5 anyway

catcode 5 is (like a comment catcode) not a valid catcode for a token

@DavidCarlisle Hm, would be good to get one with catcode 5 as to not break other stuff.

???? what are you even trying to do?

@HenriMenke no you can not have a token of catcode 5

Sounds like you want to grab the argument verbatim then scantokens after do the necessary changes

Which is... something some of my other unreleased package does, by the way

@user202729 possibly, or possibly "don't start from there"

@HenriMenke an input character of catcode 5 acts like a comment, it and the rest of the input line buffer are discarded and not tokenized, it then triggers eol processing. So it never corresponds to a token

@samcarter oh no twitter.com/foxes_in_love/status/1544619159241236480

@PauloCereda oh no :)

@samcarter oh no :)

Hey guys, small question on citing

@nathdwek Yes?

I'm working on an article, provided a template, pdftex with bibtex, ieee citation style

no issue with citing in general, just a quirk: ieee sorts citation by order of appearance, which I'm very fine with

@nathdwek An official one or something you found on the internet?

@nathdwek Yes, as it should :)

@JosephWright official one, from the journal I'm publishing in

@nathdwek OK

So here comes the quirk I'd like to know how if it's possible to fix

(easily)

If I cite later on in the paper references which have already been cited, I just put them in the order I remember them

they are cited as I list them in cite

so not ordered anymore. And it annoys me a tiny tiny bit

@nathdwek Example of your input?

\cite{cumbo_advanced_2021,tamarozzi_noise_nodate,devos_sensor_2021,cappelle_sensor_2021,iriarte_optimal_2020,khalil_optimal_2019,mazzanti_improved_2020}

All those were already cited

And I just put them in order they come to mind

but then (expectedly) the output is [8, 3, 4, 2]

@nathdwek Normally natbib would be set up to sort them, but if the template doesn't, I'd leave to the editorial office: this is ultimately their business

I can reorder the cite manually so that it matches order of appearance, but I wonder (curiosity and perfectionism) if there's an easy key to order the number within a citing bracket

@JosephWright heh....I'm publishing in a decent journal, but even Elsevier don't really do this correctly anymore

tbh I don't trust editorial offices a lot with those kind of things, they let so much little things go through...

(when it's not more obvious BS)

Ok, I'll look into natbib

I'm looking into it

no, just \bibliographystyle{iEEEtran_NoDash}

reading the natbib documentation, sounds like what I want to do might be already provided by the cite package, which has a more limited scope

\uspackage{cite} is less invasive than natbib, it basically just sorts

@DavidCarlisle The IEEE styles are natbib-based

@nathdwek oh as I was writing:-)

@DavidCarlisle ok was about to ask if there was any reason to not use cite, but seems like you answered thisalready

@nathdwek Like I said, this is down to the editorial office, as in if they've not set it up to sort, that's a decision they've actively made and I'd respect it

@JosephWright so is this a counterindication to cite? for what it's worth I don't find natbib invoked anywhere in my wirting directory

@JosephWright that's why I asked first, I should never believe the user:-) @nathdwek ^^ as Joseph says...

@nathdwek check your log file (or the cls file)

@JosephWright mmh, personal choice, I'd rather have them tell me using a solution to sort citations is wrong and fix then not fix it.

because I don't trust the quality of their work enough

ok I'll try cite and see if my document implodes

What I mean is if you consider their role is to fix my document so that it meets their standards, I might as well provide the document which I think is best (withing margins around their initial template). If they don't like it I'm open to fixing it, and it's their job to say that, but I think it's likely they don't even notice

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense...thanks for the help still!

neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems

@PauloCereda Oh no!

@mickep oh no

@PauloCereda The sad lucida square root is... not good.

@mickep boo

by tradition. not a palindrome though

If I have a user macro \foo, and I want a macro named similarly in a package/sty file, say xx.sty then is it reasonable to go with something like \foo@xx?

@FaheemMitha possibly but usual style is to allocate yourself a unique-ish prefix for the package and use that for all internal commands so longtable grabs \lt@.. and all internal macros starting \lt@ are probably from there

@DavidCarlisle Can't package names be the suffix? That seems more natural to me. Is there a dominant convention, or is it a "do as you please" thing?

Probably can as well. Actually making them suffix might actually make hash lookup/resolve faster

@FaheemMitha you don't have to use any naming scheme at all, but as I say those that do almost always prefix (and l3 packages formalise that convention)

@DavidCarlisle OK. But doing it as a suffix is also in line with the natural interpretation of @ as "at".

@FaheemMitha whatever as I say latex dosn't care: the original 209 style was mostly replacing vowels by @ so \foo, \fo@, \f@@

@FaheemMitha if there is a convention at all, it is that the package sets some prefix. Look in the code of some standard packages.

@DavidCarlisle @UlrikeFischer OK.

The new ConTeXt math code is now officially released: mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2022/106159.html

@TeXnician Finally. :)

-- we ditched support for \over simply because it is too fragile wrt
spacing (one can \usemodule[oldmath] to get it back

@mickep I could not test it yet on real-world documents. But I love reading about all the detailed work that has gotten into it. Many thanks for all your efforts :)

@TeXnician Thanks! It is a pure joy. (There is still a lot to do...)

@TeXnician ooh

@JosephWright good :-)