« first day (4266 days earlier)      last day (155 days later) » 

9:07 AM
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}
 
9:26 AM
@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
 
9:36 AM
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
 
@PauloCereda oh no :)
 
@samcarter oh no :)
 
11:01 AM
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
 
11:03 AM
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
 
@nathdwek does your journal class pull in a known citation package such as cite or natbib already?
 
11:08 AM
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
 
11:13 AM
@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!
 
 
3 hours later…
3:28 PM
@PauloCereda Oh no!
 
@mickep oh no
 
@PauloCereda The sad lucida square root is... not good.
 
@mickep boo
 
 
3 hours later…
6:11 PM
by tradition. not a palindrome though
 
6:40 PM
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".
 
6:50 PM
@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.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:57 PM
The new ConTeXt math code is now officially released: mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2022/106159.html
3
 
@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...)
 
9:24 PM
@TeXnician ooh
@JosephWright good :-)
 

« first day (4266 days earlier)      last day (155 days later) »