1

The inset texcount implementation seems to conflict with titlesec package.

The desired outcome is to relieve the conflict with titlesec as well as ensuring robustness against other potential conflicts.

\documentclass{article}%
\usepackage{filecontents}%
%\usepackage{titlesec} %**** uncomment to see error message

% Compile with  --enable-write18 or --shell-escape options

\immediate\write18{texcount -char -merge -tex -sum \jobname.tex | grep -i section > \jobname Count.txt} % counts characters
%\immediate\write18{texcount -merge -tex -sum \jobname.tex | grep -i section > \jobname Count.txt} % counts words
\newcommand{\limitcount}{-1}


\usepackage{xstring}
\usepackage{ifthen}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{nameref}


\newcommand{\processCount}{%
 \newread\counts
 \def\zpar{\par}
 \openin\counts=\jobname Count.txt
 \loop
 \read\counts to \sectioncount
 \ifx\sectioncount\zpar\else
 \showcount{\sectioncount}\
 \fi
 \ifeof\counts
 \else
 \repeat
}


\newcommand*{\showcount}[1]{%
 % e.g. 67+18+0 (1/0/0/0) S[ubs]ection: The first subsection
 \StrBehind{#1}{ection: }[\sectiontitleplusspace]
 \StrGobbleRight{\sectiontitleplusspace}{1}[\sectiontitle]
 \StrBefore{#1}{+}[\thiscount]
 \expandafter\ifcsname\sectiontitle limit\endcsname%
  \renewcommand{\limitcount}{\csname\sectiontitle limit\endcsname}%
 \else%
  \renewcommand{\limitcount}{-1}%
 \fi%
 \sectiontitle:
 {%
  \ifthenelse{\thiscount>\limitcount}{%
   \textcolor{red}{\thiscount/\limitcount}%
   \ifthenelse{\limitcount>-1}{%
    \ (over by \number\numexpr\thiscount-\limitcount\relax)%
   }{}%
  }{%
   \textcolor{green}{\thiscount/\limitcount}%
  }%
 }
}


\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\contentlimit}[1]{%
 \expandafter\newcommand\csname@currentlabelname limit\endcsname{#1}
}
\makeatother


\begin{filecontents}{texcountinc.tex}
\subsection{Input section title}
\contentlimit{40}
HEy, here are some more characters.
File contents that will get input elsewhere. $a^2+b^2=c^2$.
[\frac{\sin A}a=\frac{\sin B}b=\frac{\sin C}c]
\end{filecontents*}


\begin{document}


%TC:ignore


\section*{Introduction}
\contentlimit{2000}


Content for section which has become longer and longer


%TC:endignore


\section*{Another section with subsections over limit}
\contentlimit{15}


Intro


\subsection*{The first subsection no stated limit}


This subsection has somewhat more voluminous content which tends to go on and on... and on


\subsection*{Extra spaces ignored  }
\contentlimit{50}


Content aimed at testing whether math and symbols are counted: $\int$, $\Sigma$.


\section*{texcount doesn't understand lipsum}
\contentlimit{1}


Another input


\subsection*{Inputing Content}
\contentlimit{18}


\input{texcountinc}


%TC:ignore


\section*{An ignored section}


This section is ignored


% display information on document
\newpage
\section*{Count}
\processCount


%TC:endignore


\end{document}

See this question for background.

John Chris
  • 143
  • It turns out it's exactly that problem, and can use exactly that solution. I did spend some time trying to use \IfSubStr to skip the need for grep, but I couldn't get the macro to handle the line containing #. And I spent some time trying to use catchfile instead of the manual reading, but I couldn't figure out how to go through the results line by line. Either of those would make the original process better. But this should at least get you back to working. – Teepeemm Jul 15 '20 at 03:20
  • Removing the * from \section* and \subsection* works! (I am assuming that this is the proposed workaround). Including the patch proposed in the linked question also works - the * functionality is negated. – John Chris Jul 15 '20 at 08:58
  • I hadn't noticed that's what happened. The proposed workaround adds a \def to your preamble to that effect though. – Teepeemm Jul 15 '20 at 12:29
  • After updating MiKTeX, this mwe no longer compiles on my system. – John Chris Jan 02 '21 at 17:43
  • @Teepeemm, above you write: "The proposed workaround adds a \def to your preamble". Did you post this workaround in another issue? – John Chris Jan 03 '21 at 13:20
  • I think I was referring to the accepted answer of the duplicate. – Teepeemm Jan 03 '21 at 16:45

0 Answers0