Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
O
ots-doctools
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package Registry
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
ots
ots-doctools
Commits
23f56710
Commit
23f56710
authored
4 years ago
by
Karl Fogel
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
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
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
latex/ots.sty
+49
-0
49 additions, 0 deletions
latex/ots.sty
with
49 additions
and
0 deletions
latex/ots.sty
+
49
−
0
View file @
23f56710
...
...
@@ -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
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment