arrow head wrong in diagram.sty by Paul Taylor
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My codes are follows:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage[silent,nohug,heads=littlevee,midshaft]{diagrams}
begin{document}
begin{diagram}[height=0.7cm]
H^{n}(k,(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,Q(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo& 0qquadqquad \
dTo^{} && dTo^{cong} && dTo && \
H_eta^{n}(k,(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo^{text{onto}}& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n)).
end{diagram}
end{document}
And the output came as:

Both the marked arrow head position went wrong, is it possible to fix it? advise.
diagrams
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My codes are follows:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage[silent,nohug,heads=littlevee,midshaft]{diagrams}
begin{document}
begin{diagram}[height=0.7cm]
H^{n}(k,(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,Q(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo& 0qquadqquad \
dTo^{} && dTo^{cong} && dTo && \
H_eta^{n}(k,(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo^{text{onto}}& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n)).
end{diagram}
end{document}
And the output came as:

Both the marked arrow head position went wrong, is it possible to fix it? advise.
diagrams
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you removehead=littleveeit looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.
– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
Thelittleveeoption is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoningdiagrams.styaltogether.
– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My codes are follows:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage[silent,nohug,heads=littlevee,midshaft]{diagrams}
begin{document}
begin{diagram}[height=0.7cm]
H^{n}(k,(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,Q(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo& 0qquadqquad \
dTo^{} && dTo^{cong} && dTo && \
H_eta^{n}(k,(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo^{text{onto}}& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n)).
end{diagram}
end{document}
And the output came as:

Both the marked arrow head position went wrong, is it possible to fix it? advise.
diagrams
My codes are follows:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage[silent,nohug,heads=littlevee,midshaft]{diagrams}
begin{document}
begin{diagram}[height=0.7cm]
H^{n}(k,(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,Q(n)) &rTo& H^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo& 0qquadqquad \
dTo^{} && dTo^{cong} && dTo && \
H_eta^{n}(k,(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n))&rTo&H_eta^{n}(k,D(n))
&rTo^{text{onto}}& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n)).
end{diagram}
end{document}
And the output came as:

Both the marked arrow head position went wrong, is it possible to fix it? advise.
diagrams
diagrams
edited Dec 1 at 9:04
TeXnician
23.8k62984
23.8k62984
asked Oct 25 at 11:37
MadyYuvi
2,064211
2,064211
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you removehead=littleveeit looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.
– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
Thelittleveeoption is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoningdiagrams.styaltogether.
– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50
add a comment |
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you removehead=littleveeit looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.
– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
Thelittleveeoption is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoningdiagrams.styaltogether.
– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you remove
head=littlevee it looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you remove
head=littlevee it looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
The
littlevee option is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoning diagrams.sty altogether.– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50
The
littlevee option is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoning diagrams.sty altogether.– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I can't find diagrams package in my TeX distribution, but you can get the same result with tikz-cd:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage{tikz-cd}
usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
tikzcdset{arrow style=tikz, diagrams={>={Straight Barb[length=5pt,width=5pt]}}}
begin{document}
[
begin{tikzcd}[cells={anchor=west}]
H^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r}ar{d} & H^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r}ar{d}[swap, xshift=-2pt]{cong} & H^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}ar{d}
&[10pt] 0 \[10pt]
H_eta^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}[yshift=2pt]{text{onto}}
& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n))
end{tikzcd}
]
end{document}

1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi Thediagramspackage has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.
– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The littlevee option is very buggy; the tips are decently placed only in vertical arrows, see also https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427
There's not much more you can do than removing the option head=littlevee.
Debugging diagrams.sty is essentially impossible, because the code is obfuscated. As far as I can see, the arrows are boxed during package loading. That the littlevee arrows are inherently broken can be seen also in the manual itself (page 11)

add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I can't find diagrams package in my TeX distribution, but you can get the same result with tikz-cd:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage{tikz-cd}
usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
tikzcdset{arrow style=tikz, diagrams={>={Straight Barb[length=5pt,width=5pt]}}}
begin{document}
[
begin{tikzcd}[cells={anchor=west}]
H^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r}ar{d} & H^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r}ar{d}[swap, xshift=-2pt]{cong} & H^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}ar{d}
&[10pt] 0 \[10pt]
H_eta^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}[yshift=2pt]{text{onto}}
& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n))
end{tikzcd}
]
end{document}

1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi Thediagramspackage has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.
– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I can't find diagrams package in my TeX distribution, but you can get the same result with tikz-cd:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage{tikz-cd}
usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
tikzcdset{arrow style=tikz, diagrams={>={Straight Barb[length=5pt,width=5pt]}}}
begin{document}
[
begin{tikzcd}[cells={anchor=west}]
H^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r}ar{d} & H^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r}ar{d}[swap, xshift=-2pt]{cong} & H^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}ar{d}
&[10pt] 0 \[10pt]
H_eta^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}[yshift=2pt]{text{onto}}
& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n))
end{tikzcd}
]
end{document}

1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi Thediagramspackage has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.
– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I can't find diagrams package in my TeX distribution, but you can get the same result with tikz-cd:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage{tikz-cd}
usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
tikzcdset{arrow style=tikz, diagrams={>={Straight Barb[length=5pt,width=5pt]}}}
begin{document}
[
begin{tikzcd}[cells={anchor=west}]
H^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r}ar{d} & H^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r}ar{d}[swap, xshift=-2pt]{cong} & H^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}ar{d}
&[10pt] 0 \[10pt]
H_eta^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}[yshift=2pt]{text{onto}}
& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n))
end{tikzcd}
]
end{document}

I can't find diagrams package in my TeX distribution, but you can get the same result with tikz-cd:
documentclass{book}
usepackage{amsmath}
usepackage{tikz-cd}
usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
tikzcdset{arrow style=tikz, diagrams={>={Straight Barb[length=5pt,width=5pt]}}}
begin{document}
[
begin{tikzcd}[cells={anchor=west}]
H^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r}ar{d} & H^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r}ar{d}[swap, xshift=-2pt]{cong} & H^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}ar{d}
&[10pt] 0 \[10pt]
H_eta^{n}(k,(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,Q(n)) ar{r} & H_eta^{n}(k,D(n)) ar{r}[yshift=2pt]{text{onto}}
& H_eta^{n+1}(k,(n))
end{tikzcd}
]
end{document}

answered Oct 27 at 20:11
CarLaTeX
28.3k446122
28.3k446122
1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi Thediagramspackage has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.
– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
add a comment |
1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi Thediagramspackage has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.
– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
1
1
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
I think it is not in it because of its strange license. I'd suggest doing what you're doing and use something more mainstream (and distributed)
– daleif
Oct 27 at 21:04
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agree :)
– CarLaTeX
Oct 27 at 21:28
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@daleif I agreed what you said with tikz, but I have many diagrams (more than 150), so changing all to tikz may consumes more time
– MadyYuvi
Oct 29 at 4:53
@MadyYuvi The
diagrams package has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
@MadyYuvi The
diagrams package has a time-bomb in it that prevents its use after a certain date. When it's triggered, you have to install the new version. One day the author won't be around to provide a new release and you'll be stuck with a document that doesn't compile without error.– Nicola Talbot
Dec 1 at 15:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The littlevee option is very buggy; the tips are decently placed only in vertical arrows, see also https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427
There's not much more you can do than removing the option head=littlevee.
Debugging diagrams.sty is essentially impossible, because the code is obfuscated. As far as I can see, the arrows are boxed during package loading. That the littlevee arrows are inherently broken can be seen also in the manual itself (page 11)

add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The littlevee option is very buggy; the tips are decently placed only in vertical arrows, see also https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427
There's not much more you can do than removing the option head=littlevee.
Debugging diagrams.sty is essentially impossible, because the code is obfuscated. As far as I can see, the arrows are boxed during package loading. That the littlevee arrows are inherently broken can be seen also in the manual itself (page 11)

add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The littlevee option is very buggy; the tips are decently placed only in vertical arrows, see also https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427
There's not much more you can do than removing the option head=littlevee.
Debugging diagrams.sty is essentially impossible, because the code is obfuscated. As far as I can see, the arrows are boxed during package loading. That the littlevee arrows are inherently broken can be seen also in the manual itself (page 11)

The littlevee option is very buggy; the tips are decently placed only in vertical arrows, see also https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427
There's not much more you can do than removing the option head=littlevee.
Debugging diagrams.sty is essentially impossible, because the code is obfuscated. As far as I can see, the arrows are boxed during package loading. That the littlevee arrows are inherently broken can be seen also in the manual itself (page 11)

answered Dec 1 at 14:03
egreg
703k8618733148
703k8618733148
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2f456716%2farrow-head-wrong-in-diagram-sty-by-paul-taylor%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
The package code is (intentionally) obfusciated, so it is difficult to modify anythng there. If you remove
head=littleveeit looks better, maybe that is acceptable for your document.– Marijn
Oct 25 at 14:22
The
littleveeoption is buggy, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/308352/4427 I don't think you can do much more that either removing the option or abandoningdiagrams.styaltogether.– egreg
Dec 1 at 11:50