cfr

@John ????

@John why does it beep? mine never does that, no matter what I do. (not that I've tried for beeps.)

@John why do you keep your own personal packages in dtx? (genuine question - this has not really occurred to me to do.)

note that even if you have a faster machine, some method of externalisation is probably the only way to get reasonable compilation times, if your document includes many or complex pictures.

@John memoize. or robust-externalize. but I have never tried the second after skimming its author's introductory notes comparing the two. I would not recommend the external library. its own developers now recommend using one of the recent alternatives.

@John I did no such thing. I merely asked @DavidCarlisle for clarification. I expressed no position that I recall.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{memoize}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\mmzset{%
  prefix=memos/,
%   auto=\my{memoize,},
}
\NewDocumentCommand\my{+m}
{#1}
\NewDocumentCommand\mya{+O{O}+m}
{#1: #2}
\ExplSyntaxOn
\str_new:N \g__xcmd_got_cmd_str
\cs_new_protected:Npn \__xcmd_get_cmd:N #1
{
  \group_begin:
    \cs_set_eq:NN \__xcmd_tl_show:n \tl_show:n
    \cs_set_eq:NN \tl_show:n  \__xcmd_get_cmd_store:n
    \ShowCommand #1
  \group_end:
  % \str_show:N \g__xcmd_got_cmd_str
}
\cs_new_protected:Npn \__xcmd_get_cmd_store:n #1

@MaxChernoff :

@John no. it's a criticism of the conception of glyph design. (if I remember correctly - it is a long time since I read it.)

@DavidCarlisle @MaxChernoff tex. redefining \tl_show:n works.

@MaxChernoff I am glad I was not alone in this. that makes at least three.

is it possible to capture something which would normally be written to the console in a macro (or register) instead?

@samcarter :-) maybe bearwear should provide a hi-vis jacket option.

@DavidCarlisle I'm just not sure it's worth clicking 'more info' for.

@samcarter or a high-vis vest for Bär?

@samcarter @DavidCarlisle do we want tag wikis which contain just a link to ctan?

presumably because the label is set outside rather than inside the \draw_begin:. but I am not sure whether I can do anything about this.

$ diff aux1 aux2
2c2
< \new@label@record{draw.1}{{xpos}{10019143}{ypos}{40586445}{abspage}{1}}
---
> \new@label@record{draw.1}{{xpos}{10032250}{ypos}{40599552}{abspage}{1}}

when I try to memoize my l3draw square, I can get the pdf to pass validation (for whatever that is worth), but I get different aux files:

@UlrikeFischer @samcarter not an achievement I can currently aspire to.

@samcarter well, if I just take longer to do the wrong thing, it isn't much help.

what does \g__kernel_prg_map_int track? the code I came up with to memoize l3draw ends up incrementing this and I'm not sure if this is good, bad or indifferent.

@samcarter well, I should probably look even less often at the review queues ;).

@barbarabeeton it is used in rather a lot of ways for rather a lot of different things ... and I am also guilty of contributing to that. (but hardly anybody uses that code, so my guilt is minimal.)

@samcarter indeed. and I admit I forgot that tags have that 2 part structure until @DavidCarlisle/you pointed it out.

@samcarter well, at least I didn't approve that one. (I didn't even see it.)

@samcarter my point was different, I think. the two or three I looked at seemed not unreasonable. but I did not realise they simply duplicated the tag summary. that was not at all obvious in the review queue. so I'm among those guilty of approving the duplications.

@samcarter I only saw two or three. and the content mostly seemed more-or-less reasonable. (I think I edited one.) I don't look at the review queues very often.

@DavidCarlisle oh. that was not at all obvious in the review queue. at least, it was not to me. I understood there was nothing there at all. so it is (partly) my fault they were approved. @samcarter

@samcarter @DavidCarlisle aren't these tags for which there is currently no description at all? I guess it seemed to me that the tags were bad, but, since they were already in use, it would be better to have some kind of description. esp the latex-misc one seemed a bad tag to have, but at least the description did something to discourage its use.

@daleif Fx would mean something to me, but the meaning would make no sense in that message.

@MaxChernoff ah, good. but still rather unwieldy in terms of the source.

@mickep it is a pain if I paste stuff in from libre office, though, because curly apostrophes cause grouping errors.

@mickep I have to say that I would hate not to have biblatex/csquotes. I know context has its own bib/cite stuff, but biblatex/biber is just so nice ;). (maybe context's is even nicer.)

@mickep it provides that kind of markup if you prefer. well, not \quotation because latex already uses that. and biblatex likes it. I like it because I can make curly quote marks active and the source is a lot more readable. I don't want to write \quotation{term}, \quotation{term} and \quotation{term} if I have 3 terms to discuss.

@mickep it tracks nested quotations correctly and is language-variant sensitive. so if your publisher says you should have used american rather than british punctuation, you don't have to replace all the quotation marks.

@yannisl is that related? what's the connection with the \expl@finish@setup and lua? but yes, I think it has to do with tagging. but I would like to know what it is for. or at least what it is for in l3draw. right now, my square loses its label and I don't want it to.

I finally drew my square.

@DavidCarlisle wrong that @John hates it? or hating it is wrong?

@yannisl they add a remarkable number of lines of code to it for something which does nothing.

it's in the l3kernel code.

@yannisl no, it's mostly in source3. only initialised empty in source2 as far as I can tell.

@mickep should have used picture.

@John where is what?

@DavidCarlisle shocking. any unicorn would tell you differently.

while underscores may be more readable, I would definitely not use these in non-expl3 code. there are one or two packages which do this, but it is not good practice, imho. I don't think it was a good idea even before expl3. but now it is also confusing.

I use @ in macro names. I also use it in pgf key names, if they are for internal use. in latex 2, @ marks things as internal. it is the equivalent of using __ in expl3.

the . is used similarly in l3keys e.g. key .tl_set:N = \l_mod_key_tl,. so I would avoid dots, personally.

@Jasper I would not use periods in key names. I wouldn't even use them internally. and I don't see the argument @yannisl made about users not having to write \bfseries. that's independent of whether you use periods or spaces or anything else. I don't mix expl3 and pgf except via explicit bridging macros. dots are already used in pgf key handlers. I've never seen a public key with a dot in the middle. in l3 2e keys . separates the key name from the type e.g. key .store = \macro,...