I have a section:
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
I'd like a link to the section where the link text is the name of the section. I can use hyperref:
The \hyperrf[sec:introduction]{Introduction} introduces the paper.
But that requires repeating the section title ("Introduction"). Is there a way to grab that? ref yields the section number, which isn't right. autoref yields "section " and then the section number, which isn't right, either.
There are a couple of packages that provide this for you. nameref is distributed as part of hyperref to do this:
http://tug.ctan.org/cgi-bin/ctanPackageInformation.py?id=nameref
There is a more general package for cross-referencing basically anything, called zref:
http://tug.ctan.org/cgi-bin/ctanPackageInformation.py?id=zref
It's by the same author as hyperref, Heiko Oberdiek; it's the one that I would choose. Here's an example:
\documentclass[oneside,12pt]{article}
\usepackage[user,titleref]{zref}
\begin{document}
\section{Introduction of sorts.}\zlabel{sec:intro}
Hello
\subsection{Structure}
We begin in `\ztitleref{sec:intro}'.
\end{document}
Note that it even removes the trailing period in the section title.
As far as I know, there's no standard way to do this. Simply put, the sectioning commands don't store the names of the sections anywhere they can be easily retrieved. Yes, they're inserted into the Table of Contents (and associated auxiliary file) and marks are set, but access to those is unreliable at best and usually impossible without additional context, which is almost always unavailable by the time you need to refer back to the section.
The code sample you posted looks like what I would write. There might be a package to automate this, but if one exists it's probably pretty hairy code since this is really not a particularly common use case. Actually, to go all grammar nazi on you the final text you're creating is incorrect; the word "introduction" should be lowercase inside the sentence, and this can't be achieved (in general) with backreferences to the actual section titles.
I'd just suck it up and write out references like this manually. There won't be enough of them to justify automation. Of course, if you're doing something more involved than your example suggests (many auto-generated sections or something) things might be different, but if that's the case it's really a different question entirely.
You could try using
\newsavebox
\savebox
\usebox
which won't save you any typeing but will give you a single authoritative source for each title
And you might search ctan.org, I suspect this has been done already.
Related
Problem
I'm writing an essay/documentation about an application. Within this doc there are a lot of code-words which I want to be highlighted using a different font. Currently I work with:
{\fontfamily{cmtt}\selectfont SOME-KEY-WORD}
Which is a bit of work to use every time.
Question
I'm looking for a way to declare a list of words to use a specific font within the text.
I know that I can use the listings package and define morekeywords which will be highlighted within the listings-environment but I need it in the text.
I thought of something like this:
\defineList{\fontfamily{cmtt}}{
SOME-KEY-WORD-1,
SOME-Key-word-2,
...
}
EDIT
I forgot to mention that I already tried something like:
\def\somekeyword{\fontfamily{cmtt}\selectfont some\_key\_word\normalfont}
which is a little bit better then the first attempt but I still need to use \somekeyword in the text.
EDIT 2
I came upon a workaround:
\newcommand{\cmtt}[1]{{\fontfamily{cmtt}\selectfont #1\normalfont}}
It's a little better then EDIT but still not the perfect solution.
Substitution every time a word occurs, without providing any clues to TeX, might be difficult and is beyond my skills (though I'd be interested to see someone come up with a solution).
But why not simply create a macro for each of those words?
\newcommand\somekeyword{\fontfamily{cmtt}\selectfont SOME-KEY-WORD}
Use like this:
Hello, \somekeyword{} is the magic word!
The trailing {} are unfortunately necessary to prevent eating the subsequent whitespace; even the built-in \LaTeX command requires them.
If you have very many of these words and are worried about maintainability, you can even create a macro to create the macros:
\newcommand\declareword[2][]{%
\expandafter\newcommand%
\csname\if\relax#1\relax#2\else#1\fi\endcsname%
{{\fontfamily{cmtt}\selectfont #2}}%
}
\declareword{oneword} % defines \oneword
\declareword{otherword} % defines \otherword
\declareword[urlspy]{urls.py} % defines \urlspy
...
The optional argument indicates the name of the command, in case the word itself contains characters like . which cannot be used in the name of a command.
IEEE conference publications in two-column format require authors to manually equalize the lengths of the columns on the last page of the final submission. I have typically done this by inserting a \newpage where necessary -- which usually ends up being somewhere amidst my (manually entered) references.
However, I have recently begun using BibTeX to manage references, and have now run into a problem: my last page contains only a few (generated) references, and I can't figure out how to manually equalize the columns.
The last page is the tail end of what is generated by:
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{IEEEabrv,library}
Any ideas on how I can equalize the columns while continuing to use BibTeX?
I have submitted to both ACM and IEEE conferences and the easiest thing for me has been using:
\usepackage{flushend}
I've heard it doesn't always work well, but it's been great for me
http://www.ctan.org/pkg/flushend
I went back to RTFM again, and it turns out this is addressed right in "How to Use the IEEEtran LaTeX Class" by Michael Shell (maintainer). Section XIV notes that IEEEtran helpfully provides the \IEEEtriggeratref{} command for just this purpose. By default, it fires a \newline at the given BibTeX reference number. You can even change the command to fire with \IEEEtriggercmd{}.
It can also be done by using the balance package. You simply include the balance package in the preamble (\usepackage{balance}) and insert \balance some place on the last page of your document (for instance right in front of the references). However, I'm not sure if it's working if the last page (both columns) is completely full of references...
IEEE requires authors to equalize the lengths of the columns on the last page.
ACM makes us do this too. I just wind up inserting \vfill\break by hand either in the main text or somewhere in the .bbl file, wherever it makes the columns balance. By the time camera-ready copy goes to ACM, they want the .bbl file inlined by hand anyway, so tinkering by hand does not present an additional hardship.
The reference-number trick might be nice except I never use numbered references :-)
The multicols environment works only if you're luck and your last page comes out exactly as bibliography.
It would be extremely good (and not so difficult) if some enterprising hacker would build the "balance the two columns in the last page" functionality straight into LateX's \output routine. The flexibility is there in the underlying engine, and it would make a lot of people happy.
Not sure if multicol conflicts with bibtex at all, and I don't have time to check, sorry. But try this:
use the multicol package:
\usepackage{multicol} in your preamble, then:
\begin{multicols}{2}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{IEEEabrv,library}
\end{multicols}
Multicol automatically balances columns. I would recomend using it through out your document, instead of using the .cls or .sty's twocolumn option.
I'm trying to learn LaTeX. I've been googling this one for a couple days, but I don't speak enough LaTeX to be able to search for it effectively and what documentation I have found is either too simple or goes way over my head (http://www.uoregon.edu/~dspivak/files/multicol.pdf)
I have a document using the multicol package. (I'm actually using multicols* so that the first col fills before the second begins instead of trying to balance them, but I don't think that's relevant here.) The columns output nicely, but I want to be able to indicate that some content won't be broken up into different columns.
For instance,
aaaaaaaa bbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa bbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa
ccccccc
bbbbbbbb ccccccc
That poor attempt at ascii art columns is what's happening. I'd like to indicate that the b block is a whole unit that shouldn't be broken up into different columns. Since it doesn't fit under the a block, the entirety of the b block should be moved to the second column.
Should b be wrapped in something? Is there a block/float/section/box/minipage/paragraph structure I can use? Something specific to multicol? Alternatively is there a way that I can suggest a columnbreak? I'm thinking of something like \- that suggests a hyphenated line break if its convenient, but this would go between blocks.
Thanks!
Would putting the text inside a minipage not work for this?
\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
text etc
\end{minipage}
Forcing a column break is as easy as \columnbreak.
There are some gentler possibilities here.
If you decide to fight LaTeX algorithms to the bitter end, there is also this page on preventing page breaks. You can try the \samepage command, but as the page says, "it turns out to be surprisingly tricky".
I have set tocdepth to a lower number, so that other subsections are not included in the list. But instead of just removing these items, LaTeX leaves a gap. How does it happen? How could it be prevented?
We need details, including the document class, the exact tocdepth number, and the set of section headings actually used in your document. Two hypotheses:
You have not run LaTeX enough times for the TOC to stablize—possible but unlikely.
You have set the tocdepth to 1, and the document class you are using deliberately puts extra space between level 1 headings (\sections)—slightly more likely.
The table of contents may include a stretchable space in between each of the entries. If the style allows it, put a \vfill after the \tableofcontents but before any \newpages, and see if that makes a difference.
Usually I recommend one of the titletoc or tocloft packages to format ToC entries.
I can heartily recommend the memoir document class, which I use for everything from poetry to business cards. I'm very, very happy with the investment I made to learn it, even though it wasn't negligible.
In particular, to tinker at your TOC entry formatting, search for \cftbeforeKskip in memman.pdf.
The final solution will probably look something like this:
\setlength{\cftbeforechapterskip}{0pt}
or
\setlength{\cftbeforesectionskip}{0pt}
etc... (depending on which level of entry you want to adjust)
Do you use "hard wrapping" (either yourself or automatically by your editor) by inserting newlines into your source document at a certain line length, or do you write your paragraphs in one continual line and let your editor "soft-wrap" for you?
Also, what editor do you use for this?
Note: I'm interested in how you wrap lines in your TeX source code (.tex file, general prose), not how TeX wraps lines for the final document.
I recently switched to hard-wrapping per sentence (i.e., newline after sentence end only; one-to-one mapping between lines and sentences) for two reasons:
softwrap for a whole paragraph makes typos impossible to spot in version control diffs.
hardwrapped paragraphs look nice until you start to edit them, and if you re-flow a hard wrapped paragraph you end up with a whole bunch of lines changed in the diff for a possibly one word change.
Only wrapping per sentence fixes these two problems:
Small changes are comparatively easy to spot in a diff.
No re-flowing of text, only changes to, insertions of, or removal of single lines.
Looks a bit weird when you first look at it, but is the only compromise I've seen that addresses the two problems of soft and hard wrapping.
Of course, if you're working collaboratively, the answer is to use whatever the other people are using.
I use Emacs (with AUCTeX). After editing or writing a paragraph, I hit M-q to hard-wrap it. It also handles indenting items, and it also formats commented paragraphs. I don't like soft wraps, because they are visually indistinguishable from real newline characters, but behave differently.
I generally let my LaTeX editor softwrap the lines. I think part of it is due to the fact that I had some bad experiences with significant whitespace when I was first learning LaTeX, and part of it is because I don't like heavily-jagged right-margins when I'm editing the text file.
Depending on what os you use, i recommend winedt (windows) and kile (linux). Both of these soft wrap, and there is no need for hard wraps. (That is, i leave my paragraphs as long lines in the source) Latex sorts out line breaks in the output and when i read the source, i use my editor.
The only possible reason to use hard line breaks is to make it easier to find errors in the code (which the compiler indicates by line number) but they are generally not hard to find, if it's mainly text, errors are rare anyway.
Typically I have my editor insert newlines. That is, I try not to hit the "enter" key for a new line, but when the editor soft-wraps, it actually inserts a newline character.
I use vim to accomplish this, and I don't know if other editors have this feature or how they work. In specific, i use the wrapmargin feature.
I typically try to keep my lines of code (TeX or otherwise) at n-characters long for clarity and consistency. I tend to go with 80 characters, but that is up to you.
More vim-related line-breaking docs:
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/usr_25.html
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/options.html#%27textwidth%27
I tend to do hard-wrapping with TeX, but that's rooted more in my obsession with text formatting than any real gain of efficiency. One major thing that I don't like about soft-wrapping is that it tends (in my opinion, obviously) to make things harder to read by wrapping in semantically-random places.
Although I would prefer to use soft wrapping I end up using hard wrapping for one practical reason: all of my collaborators do the same. So, when I work on an article with someone it would be a big pain for me to soft wrap while the other person hard wraps. The second reason is that Emacs was until recently able to handle properly on hard wrapping. Emacs 23 which I currently use changes this but it will be a long time before everybody upgrades to 23 so I can sneak soft wrapped texts to them.
The way I actually use hard wrapping is to have auto-fill-mode turned on. Furthermore M-q is bound to LaTeX-fill-paragraph (in the AucTeX mode - but I don't remember if this is a standard binding or one of my bindings - I'm pretty sure it's the latter). Combining these two I manage to keep my TeX source more or less decently formatted.
By the way, I have heard the suggestion to always start a new sentence at the beginning of a line. In other words a period at the end of a sentence should be followed by a hard return. The benefit is that it works well with version control systems since changes to a sentence can remain localized. I think that this is in principle a nice idea but I have not managed to use it because of my obsessive-compulsive usage of M-q.
I use Kile under Linux with hard wrapping (called static word wrap in Kile) because apparently in my work environment everybody do like that. Soft wrapping makes much more sense to me, so if I could choose I would use that rather than hard wrapping.
I work in joe mostly. I from time to time press enter automatically, and if it doesn't look good I press auto-format (ctrl-k j).
Joe has autowrap modes, but I don't even bother.
I use Auctex with automatic line breaking switched off, and insert line breaks by hand. I avoid auto-formatting, since I want as few changes to where line breaks occur between edits to the document, which makes diffs less cluttered.
Using a smarter diff, one that doesn't care about tex-irrelevant whitespace, would be better, but that's the tool I use.
I like Will's suggestion of hard wrapping per sentence. I thought about it before, but I am fixed in my habits.