LibreMonk

Suppose you feed a multi-page PDF into \includepdf. If you only want pagecommand or picturecommand to take effect on some pages, you normally must split the construct up into multiple invocations. E.g.

\includepdf[pages=1], pagecommand={\doStuffOnPageOne}]{file.pdf}
\includepdf[pages=2-], pagecommand={\doStuffOnPagesAfterOne}]{file.pdf}

It gets ugly fast when there are some commands you want performed on every page, and some on select pages, because then you must write and maintain redundant code.

Fuck that. So here’s a demonstration of how to write code inside pagecommand and picturecommand that is page-specific:

\documentclass{article}

% Demonstrates use of the pdfpages package with page-by-page actions that are specific to select pages.

\usepackage{mwe}        % furnishes example-image-a4-numbered.pdf
\usepackage{pdfpages}
\usepackage{pdfcomment}
\usepackage{ocgx2}      % furnishes the ocg environment (PDF layers, but not really needed for this demo)
\usepackage{fancybox}   % furnishes oval box
\usepackage{fontawesome} % furnishes \faWarning

\begin{document}

\makeatletter
\includepdf[pages=1-,pagecommand={%
  % \makeatletter ← ⚠ does not work in this scope; must wrap the whole includepdf construct
  \pdfcomment[icon=Note, hoffset=0.5\textwidth, voffset=5em]{%
    (inside pagecommand, executing on every page)\textLF\textLF
    \texttt{\textbackslash AM@page} variable: \AM@page\textLF\textLF
    Side-note: the voffset option has no effect when the value is positive (5em in this case)% 
  }%
  \ifthenelse{\AM@page = 1 \OR \AM@page = 2 \OR \AM@page = 12}{%
    \pdfcomment[icon=Insert, hoffset=0.5\textwidth, voffset=-6em]{%
      (inside pagecommand, affecting only pages 1, 2, and 12)\textLF\textLF
      \texttt{\textbackslash AM@page} variable: \AM@page\textLF\textLF
      Strangely, the voffset option only works if it is negative.% 
    }%
  }{}
  % \makeatother
}, picturecommand={%
  \put(50,715){Inside the picture environment:}
  \put(50,700){%
    \begin{tabular}[t]{llp{0.6\textwidth}}
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash @tempcnta}    variable (useless):     &\the\@tempcnta&\\
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash @tempcntb}    variable (useless):     &\the\@tempcntb&\\
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash AM@pagecnt}   variable (useless):     &\the\AM@pagecnt&\\
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash AM@abs@page}  variable (useless):     &\AM@abs@page&\\
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash AM@page}      variable (interesting): &\AM@page & \faWarning Inside picturecommand, this number is 1 higher than the actual page number! But it’s correct inside pagecommand (see the annotation note to check).\\
      internal \texttt{\textbackslash AM@pagecount} variable (interesting): &\AM@pagecount&\\%
    \end{tabular}
    % lastpage: \AM@lastpage% broken
    \ifAM@firstpage
    We might expect this to trigger on the 1st page, but it never does. Likely because the page counter is incremented before picturecommand is invoked. It would perhaps work in the pagecommand construct.
    \fi
  }
  \put(500,770){% The ocg environment is irrelevant and unnecessary.. just here to demo PDF layers.
    \begin{ocg}{section labels}{sl1}{on}\color{blue}
      \Large\rotatebox{-45}{\setlength{\fboxsep}{6pt}\Ovalbox{Section~A}}
    \end{ocg}}}]%
{example-image-a4-numbered.pdf}
\makeatother
\end{document}

It would sometimes be useful to write conditional code that depends on boolean values defined in a parent package. E.g. the \pdfcomment package has the boolean “final”, which disables all PDF annotations in the document (\usepackage[final]{pdfcomment}). There is some other logic in my document that should also be disabled when that boolean is true. I tried simply using:

\ifpc@gopt@final\else%
…code that should not run when final is true…
\fi

pdflatex gives: “Undefined control sequence”

More generally, many draft options are often useful for controlling logic within the document for which a parent uses a draft option. Also when defining a custom letterhead in the scrlttr2 class there are booleans for many items that may or may not be wanted in the letterhead.

Has anyone managed to read a parent boolean?

(update) This thread gives useful options for many situations. But it does not completely answer the question because there are non-draft related booleans.

SOLVED

The \ifpc@gopt@final is reachable but only inside a \makeatletter stanza. Thus:

\makeatletter
\ifpc@gopt@final\else%
…code that should not run when final is true…
\fi
\makeatother

Some might find it useful to import a text file and put the contents into a PDF annotation. E.g. a PDF is in language A and you want to make a translation available in language B, in a PDF annotation.

Here’s how:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{mwe}
\usepackage{pdfpages}
\usepackage{pdfcomment}
\usepackage{newfile}
\usepackage{xstring}
\usepackage{catchfile}

% heredoc holding text that normally breaks the \pdfcomment command:
\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname_sample.txt}
line one

line two
tricky symbols: _&%
\end{filecontents*}

% normally the above file is whatever you supply to be imported into the PDF annotation. The heredoc is just to provide a self-contained sample.

% Create \pdfcommentfile, which is a version of \pdfcomment that can read from a file:
\makeatletter
\gdef\pdfcommentfile#1{%
  \begingroup
  \everyeof{\noexpand}%
  \long\edef\temp{\noexpand\pdfcomment{\@@input{#1}}}%
  \temp
  \endgroup
}%
\makeatother

\CatchFileDef{\cfile}{\jobname_sample.txt}{} % side-effects: replaces blank lines with “\par” and drops percent symbols

% Replace blank lines with \textLF and replace special symbols with those that are safe for \pdfcomment. Warning: this is probably not a complete list of all constructs that break \pdfcomment!
\StrSubstitute{\cfile}{\par}{\string\noexpand\string\textLF\ }[\pdfannotationtxt] % the hard space is after textLF is a bit unfortunate; not sure how to do a normal space there
\StrSubstitute{\pdfannotationtxt}{\%}{\string\noexpand\string\%}[\pdfannotationtxt]
\StrSubstitute{\pdfannotationtxt}{_}{\string\noexpand\string\_}[\pdfannotationtxt]
\StrSubstitute{\pdfannotationtxt}{&}{\string\noexpand\string\&}[\pdfannotationtxt]

% the \pdfcomment command cannot directly handle the above substitutions (nor can it handle the original unsubstituted version). So we write the new version to another file:

\newoutputstream{filteredresult}
\openoutputfile{\jobname_filtered.txt}{filteredresult}
\addtostream{filteredresult}{\pdfannotationtxt}
\closeoutputstream{filteredresult}

\begin{document}
\pdfcommentfile{\jobname_filtered.txt}
\includepdf{example-image-a.pdf}
\end{document}

There should be a way to substitute the special characters and blank lines then feed it directly to \pdfcomment, but I’ve exhausted that effort. I’ve been in this LaTeX rabbit hole for days now trying to do something that should be simple. So this is as far as I go. The code above works but it’s ugly as fuck that we have to write the filtered text to file then read the file back in. The file i/o slows down compilation much more than what I consider reasonable.

cross-posted from: https://linkage.ds8.zone/post/363360

I am trying to do some simple character replacements on an input file and writing it to a file. The output produced by \StrSubstitute is quite bizarre. Here is a MWE:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{newfile}      % furnishes \newoutputstream
\usepackage{catchfile}    % furnishes \CatchFileDef
\usepackage{xstring}      % furnishes \StrSubstitute
\usepackage{stringstrings}% furnishes \convertword (a \StrSubstitute alternative)

% heredoc that creates source input file
\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname_sample.txt}
line one

line two
tricky symbols: _&%
\end{filecontents*}

\CatchFileDef{\cfile}{\jobname_sample.txt}{}

\begin{document}

% Replacements needed:
%   & → \&
%   % → \%
%   _ → \_
%   \newline\newline → \textLF (replace blank lines)
%
\StrSubstitute{\cfile}{&}{\&}[\mystring]
\StrSubstitute{\mystring}{\%}{\%}[\mystring]
\StrSubstitute{\mystring}{_}{\_}[\mystring]
\StrSubstitute{\mystring}{\newline\newline}{\\textLF}[\mystring]

\newwrite\myoutput
\immediate\openout\myoutput=\jobname_filtered_native.txt
\immediate\write\myoutput{\mystring}
\immediate\closeout\myoutput

\newoutputstream{filtered}
\openoutputfile{\jobname_filtered_newfile.txt}{filtered}
\addtostream{filtered}{\mystring}
\closeoutputstream{filtered}

\noindent\textbf{filtered catchfile}:\\
\mystring

\noindent\textbf{filtered catchfile (2nd attempt)}:\\
\convertword{\mystring}{\newline\newline}{\noexpand\textLF}
 
\end{document}

That uses two different techniques to write to a file, and both give slightly different yet wildly unexpected output:

$ cat sample_code_filtered_native.txt
line one \par line two tricky symbols: \protect \global \let \OT1\textunderscore \unhbox \voidb@x \kern .06em\vbox {\hrule width.3em}\OT1\textunderscore \&
$ cat sample_code_filtered_newfile.txt
line one \par line two tricky symbols: \global\let \OT1\textunderscore \unhbox \voidb@x \kern .06em\vbox {\hrule width.3em}\OT1\textunderscore \&

What triggered all that garbage to be created? This is what the output [b]should[/b] be:

line one\textLF
line two
tricky symbols: _&%

I also tried a 3rd way to write \mystring to a file, as follows:

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname_myvar.txt}
  \mystring
\end{filecontents*}

That approach literally writes the string “\mystring” to a file, which is useless in this case.

(update) apparently a \string needs to prefix the substituted strings.

Suppose you resist a bank that forces you to access your account exclusively via some shitty phone app, which also requires you to buy a new smartphone. And suppose you refuse, so your only access to the bank account is via the card.

What happens when the time comes that (e.g.) the gov or a creditor demands a payment by credit transfer, not by card? Are you consequently forced by your obligation to make a payment to then buy a phone? Or do you have a right to manually order a payment from your bank by sending a written letter or something?

There is this law but I’m not sure it’s applicable:

REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012, Art.4: Interoperability
…
3. The processing of credit transfers and direct debits shall not be hindered by technical obstacles.

I think that law was really intended for the bank-to-bank segment of the transaction, not consumer to bank. I get the impression we have no codefied rights, just recommendations to lawmakers, such as:

The European Commission, in its 2012 Green Paper, insisted that standardisation in the mobile payments area should ensure full interoperability between mobile payment solutions, and favour open standards to ensure the mobility of consumers when they wish to change their telecom operator or bank.
…
In its Mobile Payments Initiatives Overview, the European Payments Council stated that different mobile payment solutions from multiple payment service providers should be able to coexist in the same mobile device. In its opinion, consumers should not be bound to a specific network operator or particular mobile equipment, but should be able to switch between payment service providers, with interoperability as a key feature needed to achieve these goals.

But to be fair that was written 10 years ago. Any headway?

cross-posted from: https://linkage.ds8.zone/post/341870

I signed an agreement with a creditor that obligates me to pay them using a bank inside the country. This was fine initially but then I moved out of the country and the acct was closed. Other banks will not open an account for me and the creditor refuses cash. So the creditor is treating me like a non-payer to a quite harsh extent.

I have over-simplified here but I just want to know very generally what the common practices are around the world for contract law situations where someone without much bargaining power signs a contract that obligates them to do something that’s only achievable if other 3rd-parties agree to serve them, and then those other 3rd-parties later refuse.

BTW, I am not interested in advice on situational hacks and angles like “find a friend to pay for you”. I want to know how courts treat the situation when all options have failed. Are people typically held accountable for agreeing to something which relied on actions of others?

(the situation is not in the Netherlands but I am still interested in answers as to how these kinds of situations are dealt with in the Netherlands)

/cc @law@a.gup.pe

cross-posted from: https://linkage.ds8.zone/post/341870

I signed an agreement with a creditor that obligates me to pay them using a bank inside the country. This was fine initially but then I moved out of the country and the acct was closed. Other banks will not open an account for me and the creditor refuses cash. So the creditor is treating me like a non-payer to a quite harsh extent.

I have over-simplified here but I just want to know very generally what the common practices are around the world for contract law situations where someone without much bargaining power signs a contract that obligates them to do something that’s only achievable if other 3rd-parties agree to serve them, and then those other 3rd-parties later refuse.

BTW, I am not interested in advice on situational hacks and angles like “find a friend to pay for you”. I want to know how courts treat the situation when all options have failed. Are people typically held accountable for agreeing to something which relied on actions of others?

(the situation is not in the UK but I am still interested in answers as to how these kinds of situations are dealt with in the UK)

I was thinking about the problem with JavaScript and the misery it brings to people. I think I’ve pinned it down to a conflict of interest.

Software is supposed to serve the user who runs it. That’s the expectation, and rightfully so. It’s not supposed to serve anyone else. Free software is true to this principle, loosely under the FSF “freedom 0” principle.

Non-free software is problematic because the user cannot see the code. The code only has to pretend to serve the user while in reality it serves the real master (the corporation who profits from it).

JavaScript has a similar conflict of interest. It’s distributed by the same entity who operates API services -- a stakeholder. Regardless of whether the JS is free software or not, there is an inherent conflict of interest whereby the JS is produced by a non-user party to the digital transactions. This means the software is not working for the user. It’s only pretending to.

I just started using the LaTeX community (!tex@lemmy.sdfeu.org). Sad to see it go.

update

Just noticed it’s back up, but there are no communities. That’s bizarre. So if someone not on lemmy.sdfeu.org were to post to !tex@lemmy.sdfeu.org, I guess it’d still be like a ghost node because the post would have nowhere to go on the hosting node.