Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 23f56710 authored by Karl Fogel's avatar Karl Fogel
Browse files

Add research note about 'acronym package

I actually wrote this up on May 7th, but forgot to commit it.
parent b19ce8d1
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -77,6 +77,55 @@ trim=0cm 11cm 19.3cm 11cm, scale=0.09]{otslogo.pdf}}}
% http://ctan.mirrors.hoobly.com/macros/latex/contrib/acronym/acronym.pdf
%
% Acronyms should be expanded on first use, but not after.
%
% Research note:
% --------------
%
% In case you're wondering why the "acronym" package versus, say, the
% "acro" package, % which is very similar, it happens that Karl went
% down this research road (because reasons, yak-shaving, etc) and
% his tentative conclusion is that "acronym" is the most popular one,
% and that even the author of "acro" doesn't necessarily think you
% should switch from "acronym" to "acro" unless you really need to.
% Specifically, see this in the source of "acro" (in acro_en.tex):
%
% > After \wikipedia{} told us what acronyms are and we won't confuse them
% > with units or other kinds of abbreviations -- why would we need
% > another package for them? There are several already:
% > \pkg{acronym}~\cite{pkg:acronym}, \pkg{acromake}~\cite{pkg:acromake},
% > \pkg{acroterm}~\cite{pkg:acroterm}, the abbreviations package
% > \pkg{abbrevs}~\cite{pkg:abbrevs} (the current version 1.4 has a
% > bug\footnote{see \url{http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/59840/5049}
% > for solutions.}, though), the nomenclature package
% > \pkg{nomencl}~\cite{pkg:nomencl}, and of course the mighty
% > \pkg{glossaries}~\cite{pkg:glossaries}. So there is really no
% > \emph{need} for a new package.
% >
% > On the other hand \pkg{acronym}, the best of the acronym specific
% > packages, has one or two shortcomings and sometimes using
% > \pkg{glossaries} seems a bit of an overkill (or simply inconvenient as
% > one has to run \code{makeglossaries}, \code{makeindex} or
% > \code{xindy}, then\footnote{Rumour has it there is going to be a
% > version that can be used without running an external program}). So
% > \acro\ stands somewhere in between (but closer to \pkg{acronym}).
% >
% > The main reason for the existance of \acro\ is a question on
% > \acs{tex.sx}
% > \footnote{\url{http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/59449/5049}} which
% > intrigued me and in consequence led to \acro\ and it's option
% > \option{single}.
% >
% > \acro\ has many similarities with the \pkg{acronym} package. In fact,
% > quite some macros have the same name and meaning\footnote{\emph{Not}
% > in the sense of \cs*{meaning}!}.
% >
% > Please take a minute to think and decide which package will suit your
% > needs best. Are you planning to add a glossary to your book? You
% > should probably go with \pkg{glossaries}, then. Are you planning to
% > add a nomenclature? You may want to choose \pkg{nomencl} (or again:
% > \pkg{glossaries}) and so on. \acro\ does a good job for lists of
% > abbreviations.
\usepackage[printonlyused,withpage]{acronym}
% One acronym bug you should know about if you're using it: If first
% reference isn't \ac{foo} but instead \acl{foo} or similar, follow it
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment