I've imported Module:Documentation and Module:Arguments for custom mediawiki from wikipedia. Unfortunately, Lua indicates template loop inside them on also wiki-native pages like Template:Extension, these are not custom templates or pages. Would like a hint or direction to look into, maybe someone encountered the same problem.
The problem is in Template:Extension docs (probably, Template:Extension/doc). The Module:Documentation in both Russian and English Wikipedias is shorter than 464 lines, so your version is either obsolete or modified.
Related
I need help importing a library to Xamarin. I included the library and inserted it into a new folder named BarcodeScanner, and the name of the library is libBarcodeScanner.a.
gcc_flags "-L${ProjectDir} -lBarcodeScanner -force_load ${ProjectDir}/libBarcodeScanner.a”
But it shows an error:
Error: Could not parse additional mtouch arguments: No matching quote found.
What should i do ?
Do i need to create a binding project to use a library like BarcodeScanner ?
Error: Could not parse additional mtouch arguments: No matching quote found.
That does not look like a Xamarin.iOS (mtouch) error message. Those start with a MT prefix followed by 4 numbers, e.g. MT2001. Could it be Xamarin Studio giving you this error ?
What should i do ?
Review the flags: are they identical to what's pasted above ?
No matching quote found. makes is sound there's an extra quote in there. Maybe one of the " is wrong (e.g. a autocorrection giving you a smart quote) ?
Or maybe your project directory (replaced from ${ProjectDir} contains a quote character ?
Also can you edit your question to add which version of Xamarin Studio you're using ?
Do i need to create a binding project to use a library like BarcodeScanner ?
No, but it's the preferred ways to link static libraries. Using a binding project removed the need to add Additional mtouch arguments inside every projects and every build configuration (e.g. Debug, Release...) of your applications.
I will answer my own question, maybe it will help someone. I declared in my MainController that i needed:
using MonoTouch.CoreVideo;
using MonoTouch.CoreMedia;
using MonoTouch.CoreGraphics;
using MonoTouch.CoreFoundation;
And after that i referenced only the static library with:
-gcc_flags "-L${ProjectDir} -lBarcodeScanner -force_load ${ProjectDir}/libBarcodeScanner.a"
#poupou's "maybe" was spot on, but I'll be pedantic and explain exactly.
Look closely at this line I just quoted from your original question. I've marked it down using code (four spaces prefix per line), and broke it into two lines. Nothing else has been changed. Hopefully the error should be obvious now:
- gcc_flags "-L${ProjectDir} -lBarcodeScanner
-force_load ${ProjectDir}/libBarcodeScanner.a”
Essentially, you used different types of double quotes. The first double-quote character above is Unicode 0x0022, which is the regular Quotation Mark. The second double-quote character above is Unicode 0x8221, or Right Double Quotation Mark. It might be that you had copied & pasted all or part of the line above from a web page, rather than typing it in.
For command-line processing, mixing your styles of double quotes simply won't work. You'll need to use balanced regular quotation marks, as you wrote in your own answer just now (but might not have specifically noticed?) FWIW, the right- and left- variants of the quotation mark are usually used for word processing, web pages, etc. where the style aesthetic matters.
Since you didn't use code-markup when quoting that line originally (while I noticed you did, in your recently posted answer) it looks like Stack Overflow "helpfully" tried to render the quotes as similar in style, fooling us into looking elsewhere for the problem, when it was right in front of us.
Anyway, next time you get an error about mismatched quotes, I suggest you carefully check their type. If they look the least bit different, they may not be the right kind of quotes.
I work on a huge script in \latex.
I want to be able to compile each of the chapters as stand-alone, because it is easier for hacking sessions with Latex.
On the other hand, I would like to maintain a document which encompasses the whole script so far written.
I do not know how to maintain both these documents without permanently annoying overhead, as a tex-file can either be written stand-alone or to be included.
It would be great help to have something a Latex-preprocessor available that is capable of C-like #define and #ifdef-#else-#endif statements. This would facilitate writing to a great extent. Do you know whether something like this exists in latex, or how can you do something equivalent? Google hasn't supplied me with a satisfying answer to this.
EDIT:
Some remarks in order to avoid misunderstandings: I am aware of the very simple built-in TEX-preprocessor, but these commands don't work properly as I expected. Hence a reference to these will not help me out.
The chapters in my script shall look something like this (Pseudo-Code)
IF being_just_included defined
%No header here, and document has already begun
ELSE
\input{common_header.tex} %Header things all my documents use
\begin{document}
ENDIF
%%% Lots of stuff
IF being_just_included defined
%Nothing to do here
ELSE
\end{document}
END IF
In contrast, my complete script source file should look like this
\input{common_header.tex}
DEFINE being_just_included
\begin{document}
\input{preamble.tex}
\input{first_chapter.tex}
\input{second_chapter.tex}
\input{third_chapter.tex}
\end{document}
Could you post a code which performs something like this?
Thank you very much for this package and the hint to the forum.
After some time I've figured out there exists a tex preprocessor, which is similar to the CPP. Maybe not well-engineered, but it serves my purpose quite well.
The magic lines are:
\def\justbeingincluded{justbeingincluded}
\ifx\justbeingincluded\undefined
\fi
to be used appropiatly within the respective source files.
One way of doing this is to use the standalone package, intended for this specific purpose.
You may also care to browse through, and perhaps join, TeX and Friends.
So I want to use memoir document class and the ntheorem package with the thmmarks option. When I try and compile a file like this, I get "no room for a new \count" errors. What can I do about this?
ntheorem with thmmarks option works fine in article, and ntheorem works alright in memoir as long as I don't try and use the thmmarks option...
To reformulate the question: Is there a way to, I don't know, cut out parts of the memoir class definitions that I don't use to free up some \counts for ntheorem thmmarks? Or is there a way to alter how many \counts LaTeX allows so that there are enough to share?
(I'm fully aware that insisting on using memoir for typesetting a theorem-heavy document is a little perverse, but what the heck.)
See the TeX FAQ entry about this error: No room for a new “thing”.
With any modern LaTeX installation, you're going to be using eTeX. Thus, based on that FAQ entry, you should be able to fix the problem by inserting
\usepackage{etex}
immediately after your \documentclass line. If that's insufficient, try also adding the \reserveinserts{n} line suggested there with some appropriate number of additional inserts (which I guess you can find by trial and error), to reserve additional space. (A bit of Google-searching on reserveinserts ntheorem indicates that this is a common problem with the ntheorem package, and finds a suggestion of 10 as a reasonable value, though you may need more.)
If that works, you might also write to the Memoir class author, and suggest that he add a note to this effect in the manual.
This thread also suggests an alternate method of loading the ntheorem package that may help, if \reserveinserts doesn't do the trick:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.text.tex/2009-03/msg00531.html
memoir wasn't really designed to be setting all that math-- hence the name memoir and as such, memoir does things in kind-of its own way, and provides much more functionality out of the box than article, report, or book. this comes at a cost though, as some packages aren't compatible with memoir... you might be better of using article, report or book. However, there is an extensive list of errors in the memoir manual. read it!
I've been using Netbeans for Rails and like it a lot, considering how little I paid for it. But something that bothers me is that when I'm editing an RHTML or ERB file, it doesn't do the code autocomplete - or at least not reliably. Sometimes it shows the appropriate variables and methods that are available on an object after you type the dot operator. Sometimes it ignores the instance variables. Is there a solution for this? (Please don't say RadRails).
Oh and one more thing in case anyone has solved this: considering how often I have to type <% when I'm in a Rails template, I wish there was some hotkey for autotyping the tag . . . ? I always have to stop and look down at my keyboard to find the < and % keys before I can type the tag so it's not as trivial as it might sound.
I believe you're looking for something like this:
http://ruby.netbeans.org/codetemplates-rhtml.html
Type in one of the triggers, then hit the tab key to expand it to the code as given.
Also, you might want to explore using HAML. It's much easier on the hands.
I need a way to add text comments in "Word style" to a Latex document. I don't mean to comment the source code of the document. What I want is a way to add corrections, suggestions, etc. to the document, so that they don't interrupt the text flow, but that would still make it easy for everyone to know, which part of the sentence they are related to. They should also "disappear" when compiling the document for printing.
At first, I thought about writing a new command, that would just forward the input to \marginpar{}, and when compiling for printing would just make the definition empty. The problem is you have no guarantee where the comments will appear and you will not be able to distinguish them from the other marginpars.
Any idea?
todonotes is another package that makes nice looking callouts. You can see a number of examples in the documentation.
Since LaTeX is a text format, if you want to show someone the differences in a way that they can use them (and cherry pick from them) use the standard diff tool (e.g., diff -u orig.tex new.tex > docdiffs). This is the best way to annotate something like LaTeX documents, and can be easily used by anyone involved in the production of a document from LaTeX sources. You can then use standard LaTeX comments in your patch to explain the changes, and they can be very easily integrated. If the document lives in a version control system of some sort, just use the VCS to generate a patch file that can be reviewed.
I have used changes.sty, which gives basic change colouring:
\added{new text}
\deleted{old text}
\replaced{new text}{old text}
All of these take an optional parameter with the initials of the author who did this change. This results in different colours used, and these initials are displayed superscripted after the changed text.
\replaced[MI]{new text}{old text}
You can hide the change marks by giving the option final to the changes package.
This is very basic, and comments are not supported, but it might help.
My little home-rolled "fixme" tool uses \marginpar where possible and goes inline in places (like captions) where that is hard to arrange. This works out because I don't often use margin paragraphs for other things. This does mean you can't finalize the layout until everything is fixed, but I don't feel much pain from that...
Other than that I heartily agree with Michael about using standard tools and version control.
See also:
Tips for collaboratively editing a LaTeX document (which addresses you main question...)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/193298/best-practices-in-latex
and a self-plug:
How do I get Emacs to fill sentences, but not paragraphs?
You could also try the trackchanges package.
You can use the changebar package to highlight areas of text that have been affected.
If you don't want to do the markup manually (which can be tedious and interrupt the flow of editing) the neat latexdiff utility will take a diff of your document and produce a version of it with markup added to visually display the changes between the two versions in the typeset output.
This would be my preferred solution, although I haven't tested it out on large, multi-file documents.
The best package I know is Easy Review that provides the commenting functionality into LaTeX environment. For example, you can use the following simple commands such as \add{NEW TEXT}, \remove{OLD TEXT}, \replace{OLD TEXT}{NEW TEXT}, \comment{TEXT}{COMMENT}, \highlight{TEXT}, and \alert{TEXT}.
Some examples can be found here.
The todonotes package looks great, but if that proves too cumbersome to use, a simple solution is just to use footnotes (e.g. in red to separate them from regular footnotes).
Package trackchanges.sty works exactly the way changes.sty. See #Svante's reply.
It has easy to remember commands and you can change how edits will appear after compiling the document. You can also hide the edits for printing.