Summing the values of a sequence using expl3expl3 outputting sequence of plistsexpl3 par and sequencesHow to...
Alias to source .bashrc after it's been edited?
SFDX Can query Package Installation Status, can we?
SQL Server Management Studio SSMS 18.0 General Availability release (GA) install fails
Manager is threatning to grade me poorly if I don't complete the project
Which industry am I working in? Software development or financial services?
Number of seconds in 6 weeks
What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?
Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder
Answer "Justification for travel support" in conference registration form
Quoting Yourself
I caught several of my students plagiarizing. Could it be my fault as a teacher?
What are the differences between credential stuffing and password spraying?
What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?
Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?
Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?
How can I get a job without pushing my family's income into a higher tax bracket?
My ID is expired, can I fly to the Bahamas with my passport?
Does this article imply that Turing-Computability is not the same as "effectively computable"?
Would glacier 'trees' be plausible?
Besides the up and down quark, what other quarks are present in daily matter around us?
How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?
How do I tell my manager that his code review comment is wrong?
What happens if I start too many background jobs?
Can Ghost kill White Walkers or Wights?
Summing the values of a sequence using expl3
expl3 outputting sequence of plistsexpl3 par and sequencesHow to embed a command in an environment using Expl3?Automatic Labels with automatically generated keysDetermining the length of an expl3 sequenceMore efficient implementation using expl3Problem using a sequence in expl3Using a sequence for the x values in a functiontableNested splitting of a sequence using expl3expl3 property list values as `clist` vs token lists
In the code below, what should the definition of sumcounters
be to make it sum the current values of the counters thm
and lemma
?
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
% NewDocumentCommand{sumcounters}{}{< ? >}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
expl3 xparse
add a comment |
In the code below, what should the definition of sumcounters
be to make it sum the current values of the counters thm
and lemma
?
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
% NewDocumentCommand{sumcounters}{}{< ? >}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
expl3 xparse
add a comment |
In the code below, what should the definition of sumcounters
be to make it sum the current values of the counters thm
and lemma
?
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
% NewDocumentCommand{sumcounters}{}{< ? >}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
expl3 xparse
In the code below, what should the definition of sumcounters
be to make it sum the current values of the counters thm
and lemma
?
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
% NewDocumentCommand{sumcounters}{}{< ? >}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
expl3 xparse
expl3 xparse
asked 4 hours ago
noibenoibe
670113
670113
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You could probably do this with a temporary counter, such as l_tmpa_int
, but the code below defines a new counter l_counter_sum_int
and then the sumcounters
macro uses seq_map_inline:Nn
to add the current value
s of the counters in g_my_counters
, after which it prints the result. The output is the expected:
Here is the full code:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int% local counter for adding counter values
NewDocumentCommandsumcounters{}{
int_zero:N l_counter_sum_int% set l_counter_sum_int to 0
seq_map_inline:Nn g_my_counters {% add counters in g_my_counters
int_add:Nn l_counter_sum_int {value{##1}}
}
int_use:N l_counter_sum_int% print the result
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
Does it make a difference if I putint_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition ofsumcounters
?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls ofsumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead usel_tmpa_int
insumcounters
, in which case you can drop theint_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)
– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly usingsumcounters
I typeifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect ayes
and twono
's. What am I doing wrong?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to usesumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Instead of performing an assignment, you can also calculate the sum fully-expandably. This has the advantage that you can use it in conditionals, such as
ifnumsumcounters=0 ... fi
I also want to remind you of the expl3
convention to use Hungarian notation for variables, i.e. a variable should carry in its name the data type it holds, usually as a suffix.
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters_seq
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { lemma }
cs_new:Npn my_plus_value:n #1
{
+ (value{#1})
}
NewExpandableDocumentCommand sumcounters { }
{
int_eval:n
{
( 0 seq_map_function:NN g_my_counters_seq my_plus_value:n )
}
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488517%2fsumming-the-values-of-a-sequence-using-expl3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You could probably do this with a temporary counter, such as l_tmpa_int
, but the code below defines a new counter l_counter_sum_int
and then the sumcounters
macro uses seq_map_inline:Nn
to add the current value
s of the counters in g_my_counters
, after which it prints the result. The output is the expected:
Here is the full code:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int% local counter for adding counter values
NewDocumentCommandsumcounters{}{
int_zero:N l_counter_sum_int% set l_counter_sum_int to 0
seq_map_inline:Nn g_my_counters {% add counters in g_my_counters
int_add:Nn l_counter_sum_int {value{##1}}
}
int_use:N l_counter_sum_int% print the result
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
Does it make a difference if I putint_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition ofsumcounters
?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls ofsumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead usel_tmpa_int
insumcounters
, in which case you can drop theint_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)
– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly usingsumcounters
I typeifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect ayes
and twono
's. What am I doing wrong?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to usesumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You could probably do this with a temporary counter, such as l_tmpa_int
, but the code below defines a new counter l_counter_sum_int
and then the sumcounters
macro uses seq_map_inline:Nn
to add the current value
s of the counters in g_my_counters
, after which it prints the result. The output is the expected:
Here is the full code:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int% local counter for adding counter values
NewDocumentCommandsumcounters{}{
int_zero:N l_counter_sum_int% set l_counter_sum_int to 0
seq_map_inline:Nn g_my_counters {% add counters in g_my_counters
int_add:Nn l_counter_sum_int {value{##1}}
}
int_use:N l_counter_sum_int% print the result
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
Does it make a difference if I putint_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition ofsumcounters
?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls ofsumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead usel_tmpa_int
insumcounters
, in which case you can drop theint_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)
– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly usingsumcounters
I typeifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect ayes
and twono
's. What am I doing wrong?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to usesumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You could probably do this with a temporary counter, such as l_tmpa_int
, but the code below defines a new counter l_counter_sum_int
and then the sumcounters
macro uses seq_map_inline:Nn
to add the current value
s of the counters in g_my_counters
, after which it prints the result. The output is the expected:
Here is the full code:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int% local counter for adding counter values
NewDocumentCommandsumcounters{}{
int_zero:N l_counter_sum_int% set l_counter_sum_int to 0
seq_map_inline:Nn g_my_counters {% add counters in g_my_counters
int_add:Nn l_counter_sum_int {value{##1}}
}
int_use:N l_counter_sum_int% print the result
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
You could probably do this with a temporary counter, such as l_tmpa_int
, but the code below defines a new counter l_counter_sum_int
and then the sumcounters
macro uses seq_map_inline:Nn
to add the current value
s of the counters in g_my_counters
, after which it prints the result. The output is the expected:
Here is the full code:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters { lemma }
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int% local counter for adding counter values
NewDocumentCommandsumcounters{}{
int_zero:N l_counter_sum_int% set l_counter_sum_int to 0
seq_map_inline:Nn g_my_counters {% add counters in g_my_counters
int_add:Nn l_counter_sum_int {value{##1}}
}
int_use:N l_counter_sum_int% print the result
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
answered 3 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
31.8k34583
31.8k34583
Does it make a difference if I putint_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition ofsumcounters
?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls ofsumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead usel_tmpa_int
insumcounters
, in which case you can drop theint_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)
– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly usingsumcounters
I typeifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect ayes
and twono
's. What am I doing wrong?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to usesumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Does it make a difference if I putint_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition ofsumcounters
?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls ofsumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead usel_tmpa_int
insumcounters
, in which case you can drop theint_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)
– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly usingsumcounters
I typeifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect ayes
and twono
's. What am I doing wrong?
– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to usesumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
Does it make a difference if I put
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition of sumcounters
?– noibe
3 hours ago
Does it make a difference if I put
int_new:N l_counter_sum_int
inside the definition of sumcounters
?– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls of
sumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead use l_tmpa_int
in sumcounters
, in which case you can drop the int_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)– Andrew
3 hours ago
@noibe Yes, it makes a difference: the code above will give an error because the second and subsequent calls of
sumcounters
will try to define a define a counter that already exists. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can instead use l_tmpa_int
in sumcounters
, in which case you can drop the int_new:N
command completely. (I just checked and this works.)– Andrew
3 hours ago
If instead of directly using
sumcounters
I type ifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect a yes
and two no
's. What am I doing wrong?– noibe
3 hours ago
If instead of directly using
sumcounters
I type ifnumsumcounters=0 yes else no fi
I get some unexpected results, while I'de expect a yes
and two no
's. What am I doing wrong?– noibe
3 hours ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to use
sumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.– Andrew
1 hour ago
@noibe As Henri says, this is an expansion issue. I didn't know you would want to use
sumcounters
this way. I don't see an easy way to make my code work, so Henri's expandable solution is the way to go.– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Instead of performing an assignment, you can also calculate the sum fully-expandably. This has the advantage that you can use it in conditionals, such as
ifnumsumcounters=0 ... fi
I also want to remind you of the expl3
convention to use Hungarian notation for variables, i.e. a variable should carry in its name the data type it holds, usually as a suffix.
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters_seq
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { lemma }
cs_new:Npn my_plus_value:n #1
{
+ (value{#1})
}
NewExpandableDocumentCommand sumcounters { }
{
int_eval:n
{
( 0 seq_map_function:NN g_my_counters_seq my_plus_value:n )
}
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
add a comment |
Instead of performing an assignment, you can also calculate the sum fully-expandably. This has the advantage that you can use it in conditionals, such as
ifnumsumcounters=0 ... fi
I also want to remind you of the expl3
convention to use Hungarian notation for variables, i.e. a variable should carry in its name the data type it holds, usually as a suffix.
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters_seq
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { lemma }
cs_new:Npn my_plus_value:n #1
{
+ (value{#1})
}
NewExpandableDocumentCommand sumcounters { }
{
int_eval:n
{
( 0 seq_map_function:NN g_my_counters_seq my_plus_value:n )
}
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
add a comment |
Instead of performing an assignment, you can also calculate the sum fully-expandably. This has the advantage that you can use it in conditionals, such as
ifnumsumcounters=0 ... fi
I also want to remind you of the expl3
convention to use Hungarian notation for variables, i.e. a variable should carry in its name the data type it holds, usually as a suffix.
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters_seq
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { lemma }
cs_new:Npn my_plus_value:n #1
{
+ (value{#1})
}
NewExpandableDocumentCommand sumcounters { }
{
int_eval:n
{
( 0 seq_map_function:NN g_my_counters_seq my_plus_value:n )
}
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
Instead of performing an assignment, you can also calculate the sum fully-expandably. This has the advantage that you can use it in conditionals, such as
ifnumsumcounters=0 ... fi
I also want to remind you of the expl3
convention to use Hungarian notation for variables, i.e. a variable should carry in its name the data type it holds, usually as a suffix.
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsthm}
usepackage{xparse}
newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[chapter]
newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[chapter]
ExplSyntaxOn
seq_new:N g_my_counters_seq
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { thm }
seq_gput_right:Nn g_my_counters_seq { lemma }
cs_new:Npn my_plus_value:n #1
{
+ (value{#1})
}
NewExpandableDocumentCommand sumcounters { }
{
int_eval:n
{
( 0 seq_map_function:NN g_my_counters_seq my_plus_value:n )
}
}
ExplSyntaxOff
begin{document}
chapter{Some chapter}
sumcounters % should print 0
begin{thm}
A theorem.
end{thm}
sumcounters % should print 1
begin{lemma}
A lemma.
end{lemma}
sumcounters % should print 2
end{document}
answered 2 hours ago
Henri MenkeHenri Menke
78.2k8171285
78.2k8171285
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488517%2fsumming-the-values-of-a-sequence-using-expl3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown