[lug] OT LaTeX question
thompsma at colorado.edu
Wed Jan 14 14:21:17 MST 2004
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 14:14, rm at fabula.de wrote:
> > *Old* versions of fancybox have done this
> > before according to a web search:
> > % Problem FancyBox 1.0 <-> LaTeX 2e with the \fancyput macro
> > % The following line solve several problems in `fancybox' macros,
> > % but has the bad side effect to inhibit the table of contents generation.
> > % If you really need the TOC, try to comment next line and to recompile.
> > \newcount\c at tocdepth
> And bingo! Yes, i do use fancybox in one of my macros. Changing the
> above mentioned line does solve the problem!
Hmm...yeah, you should probably upgrade fancybox, then. I know FC1
ships with a 2000 version (probably the newest) and I think it was
supposed to have been fixed.
I am a theoretical chemist. Fear me!
Matt Thompson -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
440 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0440
JILA A510, 303-492-4662
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the LUG