Kdtyjb

Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair?

Geography at the pixel level

When should I buy a clipper card after flying to OAK?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?

Protecting Dualbooting Windows from dangerous code (like rm -rf)

What is the meaning of the verb "bear" in this context?

Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?

What tool would a Roman-age civilization have for the breaking of silver and other metals into dust?

Lightning Grid - Columns and Rows?

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?

What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?

Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible?

Loose spokes after only a few rides

Right tool to dig six foot holes?

Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?

Return to UK after being refused entry years previously

How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure

What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?

Why can Shazam fly?

How to resolve clashing definitions of comment in comment.sty and changes.sty without affecting either's interface?

0

I'm writing a package that uses both changes (v3.1.2) and comment (v3.8), and I'd like to expose their functionality to consumers of my package without having to modify either one's interface.

The problem is that both changes.sty and comment.sty define comment. Hence

documentclass{article}

usepackage{comment}

usepackage{changes}

begin{document}end{document}

throws the error

Command comment already defined.

I understand this can be fixed using savesym by (essentially) modifying changes.sty's interface, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{changes}

savesymbol{comment} % rename comment -> origcomment

usepackage{comment}



begin{document}

origcomment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{comment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{comment}

end{document}

Alternatively, comment.sty provides excludecomment for defining custom comment environments, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{comment}

savesymbol{comment}

excludecomment{mycomment}

usepackage{changes}



begin{document}

comment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{mycomment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{mycomment}

end{document}

but changes.sty breaks the default comment environment.

Is it possible to build a layer in my package which mediates between changes.sty's comment command and comment.sty's comment environment? The aim is to expose the original interface of each to a consumer of my package.

---

The two clashing definitions are as follows:

% changes.sty line 791

newcommand{comment}[2][@empty]{%

setkeys{Changes@comment}{#1}%

Changes@output%

{comment}%

{Changes@comment@id}%

{}%

{}%

{#2}%

{changescommentname}%

{#2}%

}

% comment.sty line 241

defexcludecomment

 #1{message{Excluding comment '#1'}%

    csargdef{#1}{endgroup message{Excluding '#1' comment.}%

        begingroup

           DefaultCutFileName defProcessCutFile{}%

           defThisComment####1{}ProcessComment{#1}}%

    csargdef{After#1Comment}{CloseAndInputCutFile endgroup}

    CommentEndDef{#1}}

% ...

% line 292

excludecomment{comment}

macros environments package-writing comments changes

share

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Welcome to TeX.SE!
  
  – Kurt
  31 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

I'm writing a package that uses both changes (v3.1.2) and comment (v3.8), and I'd like to expose their functionality to consumers of my package without having to modify either one's interface.

The problem is that both changes.sty and comment.sty define comment. Hence

documentclass{article}

usepackage{comment}

usepackage{changes}

begin{document}end{document}

throws the error

Command comment already defined.

I understand this can be fixed using savesym by (essentially) modifying changes.sty's interface, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{changes}

savesymbol{comment} % rename comment -> origcomment

usepackage{comment}



begin{document}

origcomment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{comment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{comment}

end{document}

Alternatively, comment.sty provides excludecomment for defining custom comment environments, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{comment}

savesymbol{comment}

excludecomment{mycomment}

usepackage{changes}



begin{document}

comment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{mycomment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{mycomment}

end{document}

but changes.sty breaks the default comment environment.

Is it possible to build a layer in my package which mediates between changes.sty's comment command and comment.sty's comment environment? The aim is to expose the original interface of each to a consumer of my package.

---

The two clashing definitions are as follows:

% changes.sty line 791

newcommand{comment}[2][@empty]{%

setkeys{Changes@comment}{#1}%

Changes@output%

{comment}%

{Changes@comment@id}%

{}%

{}%

{#2}%

{changescommentname}%

{#2}%

}

% comment.sty line 241

defexcludecomment

 #1{message{Excluding comment '#1'}%

    csargdef{#1}{endgroup message{Excluding '#1' comment.}%

        begingroup

           DefaultCutFileName defProcessCutFile{}%

           defThisComment####1{}ProcessComment{#1}}%

    csargdef{After#1Comment}{CloseAndInputCutFile endgroup}

    CommentEndDef{#1}}

% ...

% line 292

excludecomment{comment}

macros environments package-writing comments changes

share

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Welcome to TeX.SE!
  
  – Kurt
  31 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

I'm writing a package that uses both changes (v3.1.2) and comment (v3.8), and I'd like to expose their functionality to consumers of my package without having to modify either one's interface.

The problem is that both changes.sty and comment.sty define comment. Hence

documentclass{article}

usepackage{comment}

usepackage{changes}

begin{document}end{document}

throws the error

Command comment already defined.

I understand this can be fixed using savesym by (essentially) modifying changes.sty's interface, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{changes}

savesymbol{comment} % rename comment -> origcomment

usepackage{comment}



begin{document}

origcomment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{comment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{comment}

end{document}

Alternatively, comment.sty provides excludecomment for defining custom comment environments, e.g.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{comment}

savesymbol{comment}

excludecomment{mycomment}

usepackage{changes}



begin{document}

comment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{mycomment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{mycomment}

end{document}

but changes.sty breaks the default comment environment.

Is it possible to build a layer in my package which mediates between changes.sty's comment command and comment.sty's comment environment? The aim is to expose the original interface of each to a consumer of my package.

---

The two clashing definitions are as follows:

% changes.sty line 791

newcommand{comment}[2][@empty]{%

setkeys{Changes@comment}{#1}%

Changes@output%

{comment}%

{Changes@comment@id}%

{}%

{}%

{#2}%

{changescommentname}%

{#2}%

}

% comment.sty line 241

defexcludecomment

 #1{message{Excluding comment '#1'}%

    csargdef{#1}{endgroup message{Excluding '#1' comment.}%

        begingroup

           DefaultCutFileName defProcessCutFile{}%

           defThisComment####1{}ProcessComment{#1}}%

    csargdef{After#1Comment}{CloseAndInputCutFile endgroup}

    CommentEndDef{#1}}

% ...

% line 292

excludecomment{comment}

macros environments package-writing comments changes

share

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{comment}

usepackage{changes}

begin{document}end{document}

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{changes}

savesymbol{comment} % rename comment -> origcomment

usepackage{comment}



begin{document}

origcomment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{comment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{comment}

end{document}

documentclass{article}

usepackage{savesym}



usepackage{comment}

savesymbol{comment}

excludecomment{mycomment}

usepackage{changes}



begin{document}

comment{pdf comment using 'changes.sty'}

begin{mycomment}

code comment using 'comment.sty'

end{mycomment}

end{document}

% changes.sty line 791

newcommand{comment}[2][@empty]{%

setkeys{Changes@comment}{#1}%

Changes@output%

{comment}%

{Changes@comment@id}%

{}%

{}%

{#2}%

{changescommentname}%

{#2}%

}

% comment.sty line 241

defexcludecomment

 #1{message{Excluding comment '#1'}%

    csargdef{#1}{endgroup message{Excluding '#1' comment.}%

        begingroup

           DefaultCutFileName defProcessCutFile{}%

           defThisComment####1{}ProcessComment{#1}}%

    csargdef{After#1Comment}{CloseAndInputCutFile endgroup}

    CommentEndDef{#1}}

% ...

% line 292

excludecomment{comment}

share

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1

New contributor

wfsch is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 9 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1