The graphicx package provides a scalebox command. I'd like to encapsulate it in an environment like that:
\newenvironment{scaleb}{ \scalebox{0.7}{ } {}}
However, the second example below works, but the first one outputs the text without scaling and destroys all my layout.
\begin{scaleb}test\end{scaleb}
\scalebox{0.7}{test}
What am I doing wrong ?
You are trying to have unmatched { and } and the begin and end part of the environment, which TeX won't let you do. Your \newenvironment is read as follows by LaTeX:
\newenvironment{scaleb}{ \scalebox{0.7}{} {} }
so you have an empty \scalebox and no endscaleb-part. Accessing the content of an environment is slightly tricky and depends on your circumstances (can your scaleb environments be nested, do you want to be able to build new environments on top of scaleb so that you don't have a literal "\end{scaleb}" in your document, etc.)
Maybe the environ package can help you: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/environ/.
Related
I have a code block in an org document
#+NAME: result_whatever
#+BEGIN_SRC python :session data :results value :exports none
return(8.1 - 5)
#+END_SRC
which I evaluate inline:
Now, does this work? Let's see: call_result_whatever(). I'd be surprised ...
When exporting to LaTeX, this generates the following:
Now, does this work? Let's see: \texttt{3.1}. I'd be surprised \ldots{}
However, I don't want the results to be displayed in monospace. I want it to be formatted in "normal" upright font, without any special markup.
How can I achieve this?
You should be able to get it work using the optional header arguments which can be added to call_function().
I don't have LaTeX installed on this system so can't fully test the outputs to ensure they come out exactly as desired, I'm using the plain text output to compare instead. However you can use the following syntax as part of your call to modify the results.
Now, does this work? Let's see call_results_whatever()[:results raw].
I'd be surprised ...
Without the [:results raw] the output to Plain Text (Ascii buffer) is Let's see `3.0999999999999996'.. With the added results it becomes Let's see 3.0999999999999996.
For full details of the available results keywords as well as other optional header arguments for the inline blocks please see Evaluation Code Blocks and Results arguments.
this is 5 years later. apparently in org-mode 8.2 or so, a new variable was introduced (documenting in "Evaluating Code Blocks" in the org-mode manual, but this from etc/ORG-NEWS in the source tree):
*** New option: org-babel-inline-result-wrap
If you set this to the following
: (setq org-babel-inline-result-wrap "$%s$")
then inline code snippets will be wrapped into the formatting string.
so, to eliminate \texttt{}
(setq org-babel-inline-result-wrap "%s")
The problem of this type can be solved in two ways:
1: Easy does it:
A plain query-replace on the exported buffer.
Once you're in the LaTeX buffer,
beginning-of-buffer or M-<
query-replace or M-%
enter \texttt as the string that you want to replace
enter nothing as the replacement
continue to replace each match interactively
with y/n or just replace everything with !
2: But I wanna!
The second way is to nag the org-mode mailing list into
implementing a switch or an option for your specific case.
While it's necessary sometimes, it also produces a system
with thousands of switches, which can become unwieldy.
You can try, but I don't recommend.
I would like to globally prevent LaTeX from hyphenating 'Objective-C'. I am aware of the \hyphenation command, but I don't see how I can make use of it. If I pass 'Objective-C' to this command, the dash will be treated as a hint to hyphenate the word there.
One solution I found is wrapping Objective-C into an mbox each time I use it. However, the document I am writing contains this name a lot, and wrapping it into an mbox each time is ugly (as is defining a command and using this over and over again in the source code).
Why is defining a new command ugly? It's how \LaTeX\ defines itself.
\def\ObjectiveC{\mbox{Objective-C}}
Use \nobreakdash. That's what LyX produces when I insert a nonbreakingdash and convert it to tex.
As suggested here, you could define a command like this:
\newcommand\dash{\nobreakdash-\hspace{0pt}}
and use it like this
Consider the $n$\dash dimensional manifold ...
Also, you could use the babel package and use "~ as a protected hyphen. I'm not sure if using babel is advisable when writing in english, though.
As the title says I need to define a QED symbol automatically (preferable a colorbox) at the end of my custom newtheorem.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Advice: don't do it. The placing of the QED symbol depends in a non-straightforward way on the contents of your text in your environment. For instance, Andrea's code will fail if your theorem ends with display math. You will probably need to place it by hand sometimes, and you are less likely to overlook things if you always do this.
Much better would be to have an environment that complains if the QED symbol has not been placed. You can do this by defining a qedused flag, say by \newififqedused, that is unset when you enter the environment (define a wrapper using \newenvironment as Andrea said), set in a wrapper around the QED symbol, and tested when you exit the environment. If the flag is still unset on exit, issue a \PackageWarning or \PackageError.
If you really want to try to get a qed environment that tries hard to do the right thing, regardless of what is in the environment, you'll need to look into the contents of \lastbox to try to determine where the QED symbol should go. If it is an hbox, you are fine, just place the QED as per Andreas' solution. If it is an mbox, then I think making an hbox containing this mbox followed by the QED symbol should work - I'm not sure, I don't usually mess about with the typesetting of maths.
If it is a vbox, you need to look inside the structure of the vbox to find where it should go, which sounds hard - I can't think how to do that in pure Tex. In Luatex, I think that Hans Hagen's trick in The LuaTEX way: \framed might be adapted for this.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you use the package amsthm you have the command \qed to put a QED wherever you want.
You can customize the \qed by changing the command \qedsymbol. So you would do something like
\usepackage{amsthm}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{$\heartsuit$}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\newenvironment{\mythm}{\begin{\thm}}{\qed \end{thm}}
...
\begin{mythm}
blah
\end{mythm}
This if you want the QED symbol to be the same that appears in proofs. If not you can do simply
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\newenvironment{\mythm}{\begin{\thm}}{\hfill $\heartsuit$ \end{thm}}
...
\begin{mythm}
blah
\end{mythm}
Of course you can change \heartsuit with whatever you want.
An alternative is to use the ntheorem package with the options thmarks. that is \usepackage[thmarks]{ntheorem}.
You can then play with the settings to get what you want exactly...
How can I wrap a LaTeX command in an environment? In essence, how can I turn \somecommand{contents} into \begin{somecommand} contents \end{somecommand}? I have tried the obvious in creating a new environment as such:
\newenvironment{somecommand}[0]{
\somecommand{
}
{
}
}
but this causes problems with the curly brackets. Let me give a more concrete example. Say that you want to create the environment very-important and you want to use the command emph to accomplish this. An straightforward (but incorrect) solution would be to write something as
\newenvironment{very-important}[0]{
\emph{
}
{
}
}
The problem here is that the command works with the information that is found inside the environment, so it is not one of the opening commands of the environment, nor is it a closing command of the environment. The question is then: how can you do this?
This can be done with the environ package as follows:
\usepackage{environ}
...
\NewEnviron{very-important}{\emph{\BODY}}
\BODY contains the body of the environment, and environments may be nested. See the documentation for more details.
It seems that now I can guess what is the question.
\newenvironment{very-important}{\startimportant}{}
\def\startimportant#1\end{\emph{#1}\end}
\begin{very-important}
Something
\end{very-important}
This solution works well.
But IMHO it is bad idea to wrap all text in the environment. Why?
There are two ways to do something with the text.
For example, you want to change the font and use italic.
The first method. \textit{sentence written in italics}
The second method. {\it sentence written in italics\/}
What is the difference? The thing is that first method use the second one.
\it macro changes the font and the brace } changes it back.
\textit macro reads the full argument, changes the font and inserts the argument again:
\textit is defined roughly as follows (not exactly).
\def\texit#1{{\it#1\/}}
The first method is always doing extra work. It reads the argument twice.
Almost always, you can make changes and then you can everything back.
Eventually why do you use the environment? Use macros.
\veryimportant{
Any thought
}
A Simpler way could be:
\newenvironment{somecommand}[0]{
\somecommand\bgroup
}
{
\egroup
}
Explanation: \bgroup works like { and \egroup works like }.
New environment somecommand defines the macro \somecommand.
You can not use macro with the same name \somecommand inside.
Moreover you should write
\newenvironment{name}{openning command}{closing commands}
rather than
\newenvironment{somecommand}[0]{ \somecommand{ } { } }
You obviously have a problem with closing commands.
define command
\newcommnad{eqn}{1}{\begin{equation}#1\end{equation}}
will change
\eqn{x^2=y}
to
\begin{equation}
x^2=y
\end{equation}
I think
I'm trying to turn off marginpar when starting a new multicols environment with this:
\renewenvironment{multicols}[1]{%
\let\oldmarginparwidth\marginparwidth
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{0}%
\begin{multicols}{#1}
}{%
\end{multicols}%
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{\oldmarginparwidth}%
}
However, it doesn't work. What am I missing?
The command you've got there won't work mid-page, you need to use the changepage package to do that.
\usepackage{changepage}
I take it you're trying to take up the full width of the page. I nicked this from the tufte-latex class:
First, define an 'overhang' amount that'll be added to the textwidth at the beginning and subtracted at the end:
\newlength{\overhang}
\setlength{\overhang}{\marginparwidth}
\addtolength{\overhang}{\marginparsep}
Then use \adjustwidth with the overhang amount when you want to remove marginpar space:
\begin{adjustwidth}{}{-\overhang}
% This will be displayed full-width
\end{adjustwidth}{}{-\overhang}
As Damien pointed out, you can still use marginpars like this, they'll just exceed the pagewidth. \multicols will prevent you from using floats, however.
Hope that's what you need!
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here, but generally marginpars aren't allowed in multicols already. From the multicol documentation:
...floats and marginpars are not allowed in the current implementation [This is dictated by lack of time. To implement floats one has to reimplement the whole LATEX output routine.].
I have managed to get it working by using the chngpage package and defining a new environment which sets/resets different values before/after that environment.
However, I still have a problem on the last page of each \chapter: header width on the last page of the chapter