Mrthfx

Is bread bad for ducks?

Can someone be penalized for an "unlawful" act if no penalty is specified?

Identify boardgame from Big movie

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

What does ひと匙 mean in this manga and has it been used colloquially?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Did Section 31 appear in Star Trek: The Next Generation?

Why can Shazam fly?

How come people say “Would of”?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Does the shape of a die affect the probability of a number being rolled?

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

Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"

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

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Geography at the pixel level

Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?

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 3 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.

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 3 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.

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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 mins ago

wfschwfsch

1