The rules for the incremental overlay specification are given as:
\beamerpauses
is initially set to 1
- If
+
is encountered in an overlay specification, all occurrences of +
are replaced by \beamerpauses
, then \beamerpauses
is incremented
- If
.
is encountered in an overlay specification, all occurrences of .
are replaced by \beamerpauses
-1; \beamerpauses
is not changed
It might be easier to understand if you pretend this, which as far as I can see is equivalent:
\beamerpauses
is initially set to 0
- If
+
is encountered in an overlay specification, \beamerpauses
is incremented and all occurrences of +
are replaced by \beamerpauses
- If
.
is encountered in an overlay specification, all occurrences of .
are replaced by \beamerpauses
; \beamerpauses
is not changed
If you assume as well that \alt
is smart and gobbles the inactive argument rather than expands it, you would guess that
\alt<-+>{\alert<+>{foo}\alert<+>{bar}}{\alert<.>{bar}\alert<.>{foo}}
is the same as
\alt<-1>{\alert<+>{foo}\alert<+>{bar}}{\alert<.>{bar}\alert<.>{foo}}
On slide 1, the first argument \alert<+>{foo}\alert<+>{bar}
is expanded, resulting in
\alert<2>{foo}\alert<2>{bar}
After slide 1, the second argument \alert<.>{bar}\alert<.>{foo}
is instead expanded, resulting in
\alert<1>{bar}\alert<1>{foo}
So in total the combination is equivalent to
\alt<-1>{\alert<2>{foo}\alert<2>{bar}}{\alert<1>{bar}\alert<1>{foo}}
Put these in the same frame and you'll see they do the same thing.
The -
indicates an interval, so <2-4>
means "on slides 2 through 4." Without explicit endpoints the first and last slide are substituted. So the first <-+>
specification is equivalent to <1-1>
, which in turn is equivalent to <1>
.
Slide by slide we get:
the \alt
expands \alert<2>{foo}\alert<2>{bar}
, which since \beamerpauses
is 1 is the same as {foo}{bar}
the \alt
expands \alert<1>{bar}\alert<1>{foo}
, which since \beamerpauses
is 2 is the same as {bar}{foo}
.
Advanced incremental-overlay-specification-fu involves offsetting \beamerpauses
with numbers in parentheses such as \alert<.(2)->{foo}\alert<+->{bar}
, which will alert first bar
then both foo
and bar
. This is how you can have parts of a frame (for instance, parts of tikzpictures) change dynamically without having them all in the same order as they are typeset on the frame or hard-coding their slide numbers.
Edit Yossi asked if \alt
really is "smart". If you look in the source code for beamerbaseoverlay.sty
you find:
%
% \alt and \altenv
%
\def\alt{\@ifnextchar<{\beamer@alt}{\beamer@alttwo}}
\long\def\beamer@alttwo#1#2{\beamer@ifnextcharospec{\beamer@altget{#1}{#2}}{#1}}
\long\def\beamer@altget#1#2<#3>{%
\def\beamer@doifnotinframe{#2}\def\beamer@doifinframe{#1}%
{\beamer@masterdecode{#3}}\beamer@donow}
\long\def\beamer@alt<#1>#2#3{%
\def\beamer@doifnotinframe{#3}\def\beamer@doifinframe{#2}%
{\beamer@masterdecode{#1}}\beamer@donow}
To me it looks the like the effect of \alt<#1>{#2}{#3}
is that #2
and #3
are saved in macros which are expanded depending on whether #1
applies to the current frame. I don't understand expansion completely but I believe that when \def
is scanning for parameter text it doesn't expand that text until the point of replacement (as opposed to \edef
, which expands the parameter text before assigning it to #n
). So yes, \alt
is "smart" in the sense that conditionally included text is not expanded until it's included. I guess you could do a \tracingall
to know for sure.
Late Edit
Couldn't help but paste in this frame I'm working on right now.
\begin{frame}[label=integral-of-x]{Example: Integral of $x$}
\begin{example}<+->
Find $\int_0^3 x\,dx$
\end{example}
\begin{solution}<+->
\action<.->{For any $n$ we have $\alert<.(5)>{\Delta x = \frac{3}{n}}$ and for each $i$ between $0$ and $n$, $\alert<.(4)>{x_i = \frac{3i}{n}}$.}
\action<+->{For each $i$, take $x_i$ to represent the function on the $i$th interval.}
\action<+->{So}
\begin{align*}
\action<.->{\int_0^3 x\,dx = \lim_{n\to\infty} R_n }
\action<+->{&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{i=1}^n \alert<.(1)>{f(x_i)}\,\alert<.(2)>{\Delta x}}
\action<+->{ = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=1}^n
\alert<.>{\left(\frac{\alert<.(2)>{3}i}{\alert<.(2)>{n}}\right)}
\alert<+>{\left(\frac{\alert<.(1)>{3}}{\alert<.(1)>{n}}\right) }\\}
\action<+->{&= \lim_{n\to\infty}\alert<.>{\frac{9}{n^2}} \alert<.(1)>{\sum_{i=1}^n i}}
\action<+->{ = \alert<.(1)>{\lim_{n\to\infty}}\frac{9}{\alert<.(1)>{n^2}}
\cdot \alert<.>{\frac{\alert<.(1)>{n(n+1)}}{2}}}
\action<+->{= \frac{9}{2}\alert<.>{\cdot 1}}
\end{align*}
\end{solution}
\end{frame}
![sample code output](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PlHpm.gif)
Best Answer
It appears to me Till got confused: your third example shouldn't work at all if
\action
wrapped its argument in the actionenv, not passing it as an argument to actioncommand.Using
appears to work. (FYI: the ?all:2! that you observe was the < all:2 > specification that was not being taken up because no command \gray existed to parse it. (The inverted ? and ! happen to sit in the spaces for > and < if you don't use the T1 fontencoding. Even more tangentially, if you ever see ?From in a scientific paper and have to laugh, you know enough about TeX and RFC822 to qualify as a hopeless geek.)