------------------------------------------------------------------------ r4371 | khaled | 2012-04-26 18:18:10 +0200 (Thu, 26 Apr 2012) | 5 lines Changed paths: M /trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/mlist.w Properly position stacked math accents If the accentee is a |sub_math_list|, we check if it is composed of an |accent_noad| we use the positioning of its nucleus, up to the inner most |accent_noad|. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Taco, With this commit arbitrary number of top and/or bottom accents can be nested and still be positioned properly, so I think there is no need for `\Umathaccent both` anymore, so do you object if we deprecated it now, and later when it is completely removed math accent code can be simplified again (no need for separate field for bottom accents with all its complexity), what do you think? On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Cron Daemon wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ r4371 | khaled | 2012-04-26 18:18:10 +0200 (Thu, 26 Apr 2012) | 5 lines Changed paths: M /trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/mlist.w
Properly position stacked math accents
If the accentee is a |sub_math_list|, we check if it is composed of an |accent_noad| we use the positioning of its nucleus, up to the inner most |accent_noad|.
Regards, Khaled
On 04/27/2012 05:26 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Hi Taco,
With this commit arbitrary number of top and/or bottom accents can be nested and still be positioned properly, so I think there is no need for `\Umathaccent both` anymore, so do you object if we deprecated it now, and later when it is completely removed math accent code can be simplified again (no need for separate field for bottom accents with all its complexity), what do you think?
That sounds good. Best wishes, Taco
On 27-4-2012 05:26, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Hi Taco,
With this commit arbitrary number of top and/or bottom accents can be nested and still be positioned properly, so I think there is no need for `\Umathaccent both` anymore, so do you object if we deprecated it now, and later when it is completely removed math accent code can be simplified again (no need for separate field for bottom accents with all its complexity), what do you think?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Cron Daemon wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ r4371 | khaled | 2012-04-26 18:18:10 +0200 (Thu, 26 Apr 2012) | 5 lines Changed paths: M /trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/mlist.w
Properly position stacked math accents
If the accentee is a |sub_math_list|, we check if it is composed of an |accent_noad| we use the positioning of its nucleus, up to the inner most |accent_noad|.
it was introduced with a reason (also proabably inspired by mathml): with 'both' we only need to pick up the argument (math expression) once can you be a bit more explicit about removing the bottom option? how does one position at the bottom then (as Umathbotaccent was removed)? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 27-4-2012 05:26, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Hi Taco,
With this commit arbitrary number of top and/or bottom accents can be nested and still be positioned properly, so I think there is no need for `\Umathaccent both` anymore, so do you object if we deprecated it now, and later when it is completely removed math accent code can be simplified again (no need for separate field for bottom accents with all its complexity), what do you think?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Cron Daemon wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ r4371 | khaled | 2012-04-26 18:18:10 +0200 (Thu, 26 Apr 2012) | 5 lines Changed paths: M /trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/mlist.w
Properly position stacked math accents
If the accentee is a |sub_math_list|, we check if it is composed of an |accent_noad| we use the positioning of its nucleus, up to the inner most |accent_noad|.
it was introduced with a reason (also proabably inspired by mathml): with 'both' we only need to pick up the argument (math expression) once
Not sure I understand this.
can you be a bit more explicit about removing the bottom option? how does one position at the bottom then (as Umathbotaccent was removed)?
Currently we have:
\Umathaccent
On 27-4-2012 09:59, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 27-4-2012 05:26, Khaled Hosny wrote:
Hi Taco,
With this commit arbitrary number of top and/or bottom accents can be nested and still be positioned properly, so I think there is no need for `\Umathaccent both` anymore, so do you object if we deprecated it now, and later when it is completely removed math accent code can be simplified again (no need for separate field for bottom accents with all its complexity), what do you think?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Cron Daemon wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ r4371 | khaled | 2012-04-26 18:18:10 +0200 (Thu, 26 Apr 2012) | 5 lines Changed paths: M /trunk/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/tex/mlist.w
Properly position stacked math accents
If the accentee is a |sub_math_list|, we check if it is composed of an |accent_noad| we use the positioning of its nucleus, up to the inner most |accent_noad|.
it was introduced with a reason (also proabably inspired by mathml): with 'both' we only need to pick up the argument (math expression) once
Not sure I understand this.
can you be a bit more explicit about removing the bottom option? how does one position at the bottom then (as Umathbotaccent was removed)?
Currently we have: \Umathaccent
<accentee> \Umathaccent bottom <accentee> \Umathaccent both <accentee> <accentee> The only reason I see for having `both` is to be able to apply top and bottom accents simultaneously and keep them properly positioned, but with that commit we can nest any number of accents and they will be properly positioned, i.e. the same effect can be achieved with:
\Umathaccent
{\Umathaccent bottom <accentee>} (the order of accents does not matter), so `both` is redundant and can be removed and when removed we can simplify the implementation (with no user visible change). Am I missing anything here?
One of the conceptual differences is \def\xxx#1{...{#1}} and \def\xxx{...} % {#1} picked up by the scanner and not passed as argument a variant would be \Umathaccent [bottom] <accent> [bottom] <accent> ... \relax <accentee> i.e. keep reading specifications till an accentee or \relax is seen. Anyhow, we shouldn't discard functionality that was introduced for a reason too fast, Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:01:15PM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
One of the conceptual differences is
\def\xxx#1{...{#1}}
and
\def\xxx{...} % {#1} picked up by the scanner and not passed as argument
I see, though I don't think it justifies the complexity of the code, but I can live with that.
a variant would be
\Umathaccent [bottom] <accent> [bottom] <accent> ... \relax <accentee>
i.e. keep reading specifications till an accentee or \relax is seen.
That wouldn't help my point in simplifying the implementation, so I'll just keep the existing syntax.
Anyhow, we shouldn't discard functionality that was introduced for a reason too fast,
That is why I'm asking :) Regards, Khaled
participants (4)
-
Hans Hagen -
Khaled Hosny -
root＠mail.boekplan.nl -
Taco Hoekwater