Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

acronym vs. glossaries

1,822 views
Skip to first unread message

Stefan Pinnow

unread,
Nov 24, 2007, 6:33:29 AM11/24/07
to
Hello NG,
about a month ago there was a discussion about the acronym package
which could not sufficiently handle plural forms of acronyms (again). At the
end of the discussion it was said, that the acronym package is almost obsolete
and replaced by the glossaries package.

Until now I don't think so. I will bring a list of the advantages of the 2
packages.

glossaries:
- possible definition of plural forms
- automatically hyphenation (in text)
(in acronym only with crutches)
- automatic sorting of the entries due to the use of makeindex
(instead of sorting the acronyms manually in the input file)
- "toc" and "section" package options
(both have to be created manually in the acronym package)

acronym:
- possibility of using the long form again (after full/first)
- possibility of using the short form bevor the full/first form
- possibility to reset the used acronyms (for example after writing an abstract)
- possibility of using acronyms that are not added to the List of Acronyms
(that are not marked as used)
- the package options: "smaller" (typeset short form \smaller), "footnote" and
"dua" (don't use acronyms)


Summarizing for me the acronym package offers more possibilities until now. But
if Nicola could implement the "missing" commands I will also switch to
glossaries.

I also talked to Mr. Oetiker and asked him, if Nicola could use the command
names of the acronym package (at least as aliases) to make it easier to switch
to the glossaries package. He gave his OK to that.

When that is done the acronym package is really obsolete ;)

So, I hope for a discussion and of course I hope that Nicola has a lot of time
left
to add the mentioned features.


Best regards,
Stefan Pinnow


Javier Bezos

unread,
Nov 24, 2007, 11:07:58 AM11/24/07
to

> Hello NG,
> about a month ago there was a discussion about the acronym package
> which could not sufficiently handle plural forms of acronyms (again). At
> the
> end of the discussion it was said, that the acronym package is almost
> obsolete
> and replaced by the glossaries package.

There is as well a package named gloss, which is based
on bibtex, so that you can have several databases and
extract from them the required data. (Caveat: I'm one
of the author of gloss.) Perhaps a merge providing a
common interface for them with several backends (eg,
only tex, makeindex, bibtex, others...) would be useful.

Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com

Nicola Talbot

unread,
Nov 26, 2007, 4:59:54 AM11/26/07
to
On Nov 24, 11:33 am, "Stefan Pinnow" <stefan.pin...@tu-clausthal.de>
wrote:

> - possibility of using the long form again (after full/first)

The glossaries package provides the commands \glsreset{label} (resets
the entry given by label) and \glsresetall[glossary list] (resets all
entries in the named glossaries.)

> - possibility of using the short form bevor the full/first form

\glsunset{label} and \glsunsetall[glossary list]

> - possibility to reset the used acronyms (for example after writing an abstract)

Isn't that the same as the first point? Not quite sure how this is
different.

> - possibility of using acronyms that are not added to the List of Acronyms
> (that are not marked as used)

\glsentryfirst{label} (first use) and \glsentrytext{label} (subsequent
use)

> - the package options: "smaller" (typeset short form \smaller), "footnote" and
> "dua" (don't use acronyms)

I haven't read the acronym package documentation, so I'm not familiar
with these options. I assume that "footnote" produces a footnote when
the acronym is used. The following will put the long form in a
footnote on subsequent use:

\renewcommand{\newacronym}[4][]{%
\newglossaryentry{#2}{type=\acronymtype,%
name={#3},description={#4},text={#3\protect\footnote{#4}},%
first={#4 (#3)},plural={#3s\protect\footnote{#4}},%
firstplural={#4s (#3s)},#1}}

or to have the footnote appear on first use:

\renewcommand{\newacronym}[4][]{%
\newglossaryentry{#2}{type=\acronymtype,%
name={#3},description={#4},text={#3},%
first={#3\protect\footnote{#4}},plural={#3s},%
firstplural={#3s\protect\footnote{#4s}},#1}}


What's \smaller? Is it like \small or \scshape? In which case, try one
of the font suggestions in the glossaries faq:
http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~nlct/latex/packages/faq/glossariesfaq.html

What does "dua" (don't use acronyms) do? If it always expands the
acronym, then something like the following may work:

\renewcommand{\newacronym}[4][]{%
\newglossaryentry{#2}{type=\acronymtype,%
name={#3},description={#4},%
text={#4 (#3)},%
plural={#4s (#3s)},#1}}

or

\renewcommand{\newacronym}[4][]{%
\newglossaryentry{#2}{type=\acronymtype,%
name={#3},description={#4},text={#4},%
first={#4 (#3)},plural={#4s},%
firstplural={#4s (#3s)},#1}}

> So, I hope for a discussion and of course I hope that Nicola has a lot of time
> left
> to add the mentioned features.

I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, so I'm afraid you may
have to wait a while, but I hope the above will do for now.

Regards
Nicola Talbot

Stefan Pinnow

unread,
Dec 1, 2007, 1:58:21 PM12/1/07
to
Hello Nicola, hello rest of the NG,

thank you for you quick answer and here my remarks to them. First to some
definitions, so were are all talking about the same:
short form: VB
long form: Visual Basic
full form: Visual Basic (VB)
--> full = long (short)

Sometimes it is useful to use the long form instead of using the short form,
independent from the use of the acronym, for example in headings, which until
now leads to errors. So this command should also be independent from the
standard \gls-command. With your suggestion one has to remember, wether the
first form has already been used or not.

It is also useful to just can write the short form independent from the normal
\gls-command. This can also be useful when writing headings or at least for the
TOC, LOF or LOT entries.

The third point was the possibility to reset the acronyms. Sorry, it seems that
I didn't read the documented code good enough. The same for the \glsentryfirst
and \glsentrytext commands.

On the footnote option you are right. It is set a footnote on the first use of
the acronym.

The smaller option is very useful because some journals require to set the short
form \smaller (from the relsize package). With this command it is guaranteed
that it is always set correctly regardless to the surrounding text (unlike using
the \small command).

With the dua option I think you meant the right but wrote the wrong. It of
course means that only the long form is set regardless of the used command (in
the acronym package).

Hopefully it is a bit clearer now, what I wanted to say. But if not, I try to
make a comparison of the two package commands and their function (at least fully
for the acronym package). You are free to complete the commands for the
glossaries package.

acronym glossaries function
------------------------------------------------------
\ac \gls either short or full
\Gls,\GLS same but capital (beginning)
\acf full
\acs short
\acl long
\acp \glspl either short or full plural
\Glspl,\GLSpl same but capital (beginning)
\acXp X = f,s,l: plural form of \acX
\acused \glsunset mark acronym as used
\ac*,\acX* \glsentryY Y = desc,text,first...: same as above but not
marking them as used
\acresetall \glsresetall reset all acronyms

I'll wait for your comments again and of course for an updated version of your
package.

Best regards,
Stefan Pinnow


Joseph Wright

unread,
Dec 1, 2007, 5:06:28 PM12/1/07
to
On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, "Stefan Pinnow" <stefan.pin...@tu-clausthal.de>
wrote:

>
> The smaller option is very useful because some journals require to set the short
> form \smaller (from the relsize package). With this command it is guaranteed
> that it is always set correctly regardless to the surrounding text (unlike using
> the \small command).

From memory, the smaller option looked to me like faked small caps. I
think the idea was that auto-small-caps would be hard to achieve,
whereas simply making things smaller is easier. More of a hack than a
fully-implemented feature, I suspect.

Joseph Wright

0 new messages