TeX, LaTeX and Friends

« first day (5141 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (88 days later) »

cfr

00:26

@DavidCarlisle I guessed that from the indentation, though I didn't check.

8 hours later…

Paulo Cereda

07:56

@DavidCarlisle teh Crown :)

8 hours later…

D G

16:23

What is the correct way to write dimension? Is it ok?

... dimensions of \SI{6}{\m} $\times$ \SI{18}{\m}.

... dimensions of $\SI{6}{\m} \times \SI{18}{\m}$.

First version or the second one?

gusbrs

16:45

@UlrikeFischer @DavidCarlisle I read your comments to Denis' question, and have a doubt. I knew one should not put arbitrary content through and `\edef`. However, I was never sure about what the L3 e- and x-type corresponded to. `interface3` says "Functions which are not “protected” are fully expanded inside an e-type or x-type
expansion. In contrast, “protected” functions are not expanded within e and x expansions." I took that as e and x expansions corresponded to `\protected@edef`. Is this a different meaning of "protected" there?

Ulrike Fischer

16:59

@gusbrs yes, protected means commands defined with \protected\def or \cs_new_protected. Such commands are always safe, but \textsc is "only" a robust command. With such a command you have to switch the meaning of \protect to keep it safe, that is what \protected@edef does.

gusbrs

@UlrikeFischer Oh, I see. I guess I need to be more careful in a few places, especially at postnotes. Thank you!

David Carlisle

17:23

@DG that will give an error for \times`

@gusbrs x is \edef and e is \expanded which is almost the same thing.

@gusbrs ignore my \times comment

Joseph Wright

17:37

latex-project.org/news/2024/11/27/latex-dev-1

gusbrs

@DavidCarlisle Still learning... thanks! But I'm taking care of this "as we type". ;-)

@DavidCarlisle But I do think it is not that easy for those who don't already know the relevant distinctions to get what is what at a given place from the available information (none to blame here, it is just how things are). I'm no longer a noob (I hope...), I was paying attention to this, and I still missed...

mickep

@JosephWright Ohh, news!

Teepeemm

18:16

@JosephWright Are you able to fix the year in the title, or would you rather that not be pointed out?

cfr

@DavidCarlisle ?? it doesn't give an error for me.

Joseph Wright

18:46

@Teepeemm Fixed :)

David Carlisle

@mickep in other still secret news github.com/latex3/latex2e/compare/develop...gh1101

@cfr if @gusbrs had written what was in my head, it would have errored.

mickep

@DavidCarlisle Oh, will that fix the problematic file I sent to you?

David Carlisle

@mickep we'll see.... (I haven't had time to fully test yet Frank and I were discussing t today I'll try in a bit)

mickep

@DavidCarlisle Oh, good if so!

(And if it is a more general take to avoid future problems.)

cfr

19:11

@DavidCarlisle David's Extreme Precautionary Principle (DEPP): warn user A not to trust code user B did not write? or does it apply only for user A=@DG, user B=@gusbrs? ;)

David Carlisle

19:59

@cfr it seems like I applied the grand unification theory, that all users are equivalent

gusbrs

20:17

@cfr @DavidCarlisle must ensure at all times he has someone else to blame. :-)

David Carlisle

@gusbrs where is @UlrikeFischer when we need her

cfr

20:44

@DavidCarlisle ltxnews28.tex

@gusbrs ;)

@DavidCarlisle Leibniz, maybe ...

is it actually possible to use git without creating a mess of conflicts? it seems like whatever I do, I end up with git complaining. there must be some way to use it which doesn't do this?

does anybody use prettier?

David Carlisle

@cfr what (or who) are you conflicting with?

gusbrs

@DavidCarlisle what has @UlrikeFischer ever done for us?

David Carlisle

21:08

cfr

21:33

@DavidCarlisle don't you need a twin on the other side?

David Carlisle

@cfr one of me is all you need

cfr

@DavidCarlisle usually with myself, but in this case I did (I think) this: clone repo R's main branch; create local branch; fork R remotely; push changes; change more stuff etc. that's all OK. but then I'm supposed to rebase. so I updated my local copy of R's main branch and rebased my branch onto that. that's OK, too. but now I can't push my branch to my remote fork without force because the branches have diverged. so I ended up making a new branch and a new pull request. but that seems messy?

samcarter

21:49

@cfr ... an entertaining acronym for German speaking readers :P

David Carlisle

@samcarter I am sure that was not what @cfr had in mind

samcarter

@DavidCarlisle I also take accidental entertainment :D

David Carlisle

@samcarter I should take accidental offence?

samcarter

@DavidCarlisle no, only take the accidental positive things :)

2 hours later…

gusbrs

23:35

@UlrikeFischer @DavidCarlisle It seems I was being more sloppy than I was aware... (github.com/gusbrs/postnotes/commit/…). I'm glad I asked. :-) Thank you!

« first day (5141 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (88 days later) »

all rooms