Hi,
--- On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Reutenauer
wrote:
| Or just load dialogue before polyglossia.
\--
Thanks. That worked!
SK
--
Shakthi Kannan
http://www.shakthimaan.com
--
Subscriptions,
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2016/02/05/unicode-math-calligraphic-alphabet.aspx
>>
>> As explained in the article at least two possible suggestions are
>> being considered: adding the new alphabet in a new code block range,
>> or defining "variant selector" characters that would
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 11:57 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to use the "dialogue" package with XeTeX, and I hit the
> following error:
>
> === BEGIN ===
>
> ...
> (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/frankenstein/dialogue.sty
>
Hi,
--- On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Herbert Schulz
wrote:
| Load the polyglossia package after the dialogue package.
| Sometimes the order of loading makes a difference.
\--
Out of curiosity, why does this work? Shouldn't this also complain
with the same error?
SK
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> --- On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Herbert Schulz
> wrote:
> | Load the polyglossia package after the dialogue package.
> | Sometimes the order of loading makes a difference.
> It may be that polyglossia is more careful about re-defining commands.
As I said, polyglossia isn't the package that defines that command,
neither is dialogue. It could be interesting to investigate in more
details but I really don't have the time right now. (And last time I
did that kind
Herbert Schulz wrote:
> It may be that polyglossia is more careful about re-defining commands.
I don't speak LaTeX, Herb, but I would be interested to know if in
addition to \newcommand, \renewcommand, etc., there is something along
the lines of
\defineunlessincompatible
that would
Am Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:33:22 + schrieb Arthur Reutenauer:
>> It may be that polyglossia is more careful about re-defining commands.
>
> As I said, polyglossia isn't the package that defines that command,
> neither is dialogue. It could be interesting to investigate in more
> details but I
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:32:36PM +0100, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:33:22 + schrieb Arthur Reutenauer:
>
> >> It may be that polyglossia is more careful about re-defining commands.
> >
> > As I said, polyglossia isn't the package that defines that command,
> > neither