There are two big packages for managing acronyms/glossaries: acro and glossaries. Both seem to overlap pretty heavily: They both allow you to define acronyms, use them in the text, use different forms for first and later mentions, print a list at the end etc. Also they both seem to be actively maintained.

By skimming, glossaries seems more complex and popular. Also it makes the distinction between acronyms and glossary entries, which acro doesn't. Also glossaries needs an extra command for compiling. Besides that, is there anything I'm missing? Any reason to pick one over the other, especially if acro is enough for my plans?

  • I don't know about acro but with glossaries you can vary the style of the glossary/list of whatever. See, for example, the glossaries gallery. There's also an extension package glossaries-extra, which provides even more features, see the glossaries-extra gallery. Whether or not you need this, depends on your document. – Nicola Talbot May 12 '16 at 7:30
  • 1
    The glossaries package gives a tremendous about of control and customization over what you may try and produce with it. You haven't described your needs or end goals so I'll leave it at glossaries has been one of the most powerful packages that I've leveraged and in some cases over-exerted. The extra compile step is well worth the time to setup and integrate into your workflow. While intentions often start simple, scope creep always pops in to my projects, and glossaries-extra has been a powerful tool which has accommodated tremendous document automation. – EngBIRD May 19 at 3:48
  • 4 years later - thanks! – Basti May 19 at 10:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.