Journal home page
General information
Submit an item
Download style files
Contact us
logo for The PracTeX Journal TUG logo


From the Readers


The Zheng paper in 2008-2 is a very nice article!

Some comments.

I would like to have a second mode' for displaying adjacent go stones, a mode which removes the small line between them. With other words, instead of having

     |     |     |     |
    XXX   XXX    |    XXX
    XXX   XXX    |    XXX
     |     |     |     |
I would like to see
     |     |     |     |
    XXX   XXX    |    XXX
    XXX   XXX    |    XXX
     |     |     |     |			
     no line here
The same should be true for similar vertical lines.

IMHO, the results looks much more elegant.

What about using the CJK package (or xeCJK in case you are using XeTeX) to add (a) your name in Chinese and (b) CJK characters for weiqi'? Additionally, you might use the pinyin' package (part of CJK) so that you get proper tones for both transliterations.

Werner Lemberg

[Dear Werner, Thank you for your comments. We have forwarded them to the author. — The Editors]


The article by Lance Carnes in issue 2008-2 states:

A few colleagues who read this piece agreed that consistently reproducible LaTeX documents is something that should be available to every author. There are various ways this could be done. Give it some thought and then let us know your ideas.

One possibility is to use my bundledoc script (available from CTAN) to accumulate all of the styles, classes, and other files on which a LaTeX document depends. The associated arlatex script helps create self-extracting documents for simplicity of sharing a reproducible document with others.

Scott Pakin

[Dear Scott, Thanks for passing this along. Your script nicely solves the problem of making a localized set of files to reproduce a LaTeX document. — The Editors]


I enjoyed the article about different uses for BibTeX by Yogeshwarsing Calleecharan in issue 2008-1 I would like to make a short comment about the .bst code.

The "print" function does not appear to make any difference in the code, as it pushes the internal key of each citation and immediately pops it off. If you remove all uses of the print function within the .bst file, the output does not appear changed. Am I correct?

Also, it would seem that differently formatted output would be better served by defining different .bst files. I'm not sure if you can define multiple style files for multiple bibliographies, but if you could, that would seem better than hard coding the style2, style3, etc, as the type in the .bib file.

Thank you,

David Shinn

[Dear David,

1. Yes, you're indeed correct. the "print" function in the bst file doesn't seem to play any role.

2. Having a single bst file can be easier to maintain than having multiple ones. For example when writing a CV, you can want to have different flavors (different styles or different information) depending on the audience who will read the CV. I personally find it easier to keep say versions with style1 and style2 in the same bib file with the appropriate keys e.g. edu-univ-style1 and edu-univ-style2 and get the desired result by just calling either \nocite{edu-univ-style1} or \nocite{edu-univ-style2} as appropriate in the tex file. And it's the same for the bst file, to have the style definitions style1 and style2 one after the other in the same file as this makes it easier to maintain than with separate bst files. I use this technique for creating my CV and find it easier to make modifications and get different flavors of my CV by keeping a single bst and and a single bib files. In my case with a CV, having multiple bst or bib files for instance will involve more work for me. I use a subversion program to keep track of the different versions of my CV and so far I like this combination of a single bib or bst file together with a version control system.

Best Regards,



Page generated June 9, 2010 ; TUG home page; search; contact webmaster.