1

Since a recent update, the +- overlay specification doesn't seem to work anymore, for environments at least. I'm up to date with TexLive 2015 (beamer 36461 (3.36)). Consider the following MWE:

\documentclass{beamer}

\begin{document}
\begin{frame}
  \begin{block}{On the first slide}
  Hello
  \end{block}
  \begin{block}<only@+>{On the second slide}
  Goodbye
  \end{block}
\end{frame}

\end{document}

I expect the second block to appear on the second slide (that's what it used to do until recently) but the two blocks are on the same slide.

9
  • Your example doesn't use <+->.
    – cfr
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:26
  • @samcarter that would defeat the whole purpose of the + overlay specification
    – wilk
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:29
  • I get the same result with TL 2014.
    – cfr
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:30
  • @wilk sorry, I was confused because before the edit there had not been any overlay specs in the MWE. I will delete my comment Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:32
  • <+(1)-> does work but <+-> does not. Overlay specifications are tricky.... I don't see the point of trying to put only@ in there.
    – cfr
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:34

1 Answer 1

3

The behaviour is the intended behaviour as documented in the manual (90):

\begin{itemize}
\item<+-> Apple
\item<+-> Peach
\item<+-> Plum
\item<+-> Orange
\end{itemize}

The effect of the +-sign is the following: You can use it in any overlay specification at any point where you would usually use a number. If a +-sign is encountered, it is replaced by the current value of the LaTeX counter beamerpauses, which is 1 at the beginning of the frame. Then the counter is increased by 1, though it is only increased once for every overlay specification, even if the specification contains multiple +-signs (they are replaced by the same number). In the above example, the first specification is replaced by <1->. Then the second is replaced by <2-> and so forth.

2
  • Also note this is unaltered between 2014 and 2014 :-)
    – Joseph Wright
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 14:57
  • @JosephWright Indeed, it is not even altered between 2014 and 2015, either.
    – cfr
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 16:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .